Plzz (50 pts)

mr. justice murphy, dissenting:
(para 1) this exclusion of "all persons of japanese ancestry, both alien and non-alien," from the pacific coast area on a plea of military necessity in the absence of martial law ought not to be approved. such exclusion goes over "the very brink of constitutional power" and falls into the ugly abyss of racism.

(para2) in dealing with matters relating to the prosecution and progress of a war, we must accord great respect and consideration to the judgments of the military authorities who are on the scene and who have full knowledge of the military

(para 3) at the same time, however, it is essential that there be definite limits to military discretion, especially where martial law has not been declared. individuals must not be left impoverished of their constitutional rights on a plea of military necessity that has neither substance nor

(para an obvious racial discrimination, the order deprives all those within its scope of the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the fifth amendment. it further deprives these individuals of their constitutional rights to live and work where they will, to establish a home where they choose and to move about freely. in excommunicating them without benefit of hearings, this order also deprives them of all their constitutional rights to procedural due process. yet no reasonable relation to an "immediate, imminent, and impending" public danger is evident to support this racial restriction which is one of the most sweeping and complete deprivations of constitutional rights in the history of this nation in the absence of martial law.

(para the main reasons relied upon by those responsible for the forced evacuation…appear, instead, to be largely an accumulation of much of the misinformation, half-truths and insinuations that for years have been directed against japanese americans by people with racial and economic prejudices -- the same people who have been among the foremost advocates of the evacuation. a military judgment based upon such racial and sociological considerations is not entitled to the great weight ordinarily given the judgments based upon strictly military considerations.

(para one denies, of course, that there were some disloyal persons of japanese descent on the pacific coast who did all in their power to aid their ancestral land. similar disloyal activities have been engaged in by many persons of german, italian and even more pioneer stock in our country. but to infer that examples of individual disloyalty prove group disloyalty and justify discriminatory action against the entire group is to deny that under our system of law individual guilt is the sole basis for deprivation of rights. moreover, this inference, which is at the very heart of the evacuation orders, has been used in support of the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy. to give constitutional sanction to that inference in this case, however well-intentioned may have been the military command on the pacific coast, is to adopt one of the cruelest of
the rationales used by our enemies to destroy the dignity of the individual and to encourage and open the door to discriminatory actions against other minority groups in the passions of tomorrow.

(para 7) no adequate reason is given for the failure to treat these japanese americans on an individual basis by holding investigations and hearings to separate the loyal from the disloyal, as was done in the case of persons of german and italian

(para 8) i dissent, therefore, from this legalization of racism. racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life. it is unattractive in any setting but it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the constitution of the united states. all residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land. yet they are primarily and necessarily a part of the new and distinct civilization of the united states. they must accordingly be treated at all times as the heirs of the american experiment and as entitled to all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the
constitution.

1. why does justice murphy believe that there should be limits to military discretion in cases such as these?

2. what two constitutional amendments are referenced by justice murphy in paragraph 4?

3. justice murphy does believe that there are some disloyal people in the united states. how did he believe that the u. s. government should react to such disloyalty?

4. do you agree with the minority opinion that the military must have limits, even in times of war, and that racial prejudice did play a role in the u. s. government’s treatment of japanese americans during world war ii? explain your reasoning.