preview

Hirabayashi Vs Us Analysis

Decent Essays

It is said that studying the past can help us avoid repeating the same mistakes. However, it seems like we are disregarding this piece of sage advice today, as there are many conflicts being discussed without any reference to pertinent historical events. Most relevant is the correlation between the combat of terrorism today and the way America dealt with the “threat” of Japanese citizens during World War II. In the face of terrorism, we cannot enact the same injustices on any religious, ethnic, or racial group as Executive Order 9066 did to its Japanese-American citizens.
The internment of Japanese-American people for over two years was not only unlawful, but it also created a sense of distrust and resentment in the government. The constitutionality …show more content…

United States focused primarily on the curfew that resulted from Executive Order 9066. Hirabayashi argued that “the military orders were based upon racial prejudice and violated the protection the Constitution affords to all citizens” (828 F. 2d 591). The United States Supreme Court ruled against his case, saying “An appropriate exercise of the war power is not rendered invalid by the fact that it restricts the liberty of citizens” (Hirabayashi v. United State). As a result, Hirabayashi was convicted for disobeying military restrictions. The restriction of citizens’ rights is not a matter to be taken lightly; no circumstances excuse the illegality of any governmental action. As we struggle to find a way of preventing terrorist attacks today, we must always recognize that the government may take action against its own citizens when the situation becomes dire. Even though Hirabayashi’s conviction was later vacated, his petition was dismissed instead of investigating the transgressions of the government (Bannai 46). Everyone is guaranteed the same freedoms as their fellow citizens. We cannot discriminate against a group of U.S. citizens. When rights are taken away, or even limited, by the government, it is a violation of the United States Constitution and a reform is …show more content…

United States protested the exclusion of Japanese people in Military Areas. The Supreme Court convicted Korematsu for violating Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 in a 6-3 majority (Korematsu v. United States). Despite the result of his case, many people, including Supreme Court Justices, continue to look unfavorably upon the ruling (Liptak). It is hard to believe that the ruling still stands with such a great backlash. Under the stare decisis doctrine, which literally means “to stand by a decided matter,” new and future cases similar to Korematsu v. United States should have the same outcome (Grabianowski). When facing terrorism today, it is important to consider that the precedent of the Korematsu case was highly disputed even during wartime conditions. Justice Jackson wrote “If Congress in peace-time legislation should enact such a criminal law, I should suppose this Court would refuse to enforce it” in his dissent to the ruling (Korematsu v. United States). The fight against terrorism is not a time that justifies stripping a citizen of their promised rights. While our national security may be in danger, it does not mean that constitutional rights should be as well. Presently, we as a nation need to learn how to accept our fellow citizens with open arms and combat the real enemy. We have to disassociate them from the terrorists who actually pose a

Get Access