MANAGER 1
President Franklin D. Roosevelt acted illegitimately when he issued Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, warranting the internment of Japanese Americans. It was not the executive order itself that was unlawful, but rather the way it was executed by the president. FDR’s actions violated basic constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, went too far in stretching executive power, and were ultimately unacceptable in the context of the U.S. political system.
Over two thirds the evacuees were U.S. citizens and could not be interned under any interpretation of U.S. law. FDR’s authorization to intern Japanese Americans was a direct violation of their 5th amendment right to due process and denied them equal protection under the U.S. constitution (Asahina 2006). They were stripped of personal property, of which the president offered no compensation for financial losses (Robinson 2001). The constitution grants the government the right to intern foreign nationals, but not citizens (Asahina 2006).
In the supreme court case Korematsu v. United States, Fred Korematsu was accused of violating the order to exclude all Japanese from the west coast. The court ruled in favor of the order on the basis of “military necessity.” In his dissent, Justice Owen Roberts stated, “the indisputable facts exhibit a clear violation of constitutional rights,” (Korematsu v. U.S. 1944). The ruling is considered one of the biggest mistakes in history (Asahina 2006). The executive order itself did not mention Japanese Americans, or any ethnic group for that matter, and nowhere in the document did it cite “military necessity” as a justification. It also did not mention the words, “detention,” “relocation,” “evacuation,” or “internment.” It simply gave the military the authority to prescribe “war zones” within the U.S. (Roosevelt 1942). It is precisely this vague language that allowed the president to go too far in stretching his constitutional power. Without imposing martial law, the president was able to use military rule on U.S. citizens. The order gave the executive immense power and was unprecedented in its use of race to justify the impediment of the basic rights of U.S. citizens (Robinson 2001). The protocol of “internment” has well defined legal procedures, but because the order was so vague and excluded specific language, the internment was unrestrained.
The extent of the actions FDR took to implement Order 9066 were unnecessary in addressing the national security issue at hand. The government had already taken measures to investigate, interrogate, and detain thousands of potential spies and suspicious foreign nationals. All of these practices were internationally accepted protocol. After Pearl Harbor, the FBI had done systematic racial profiling and detained over a thousand of Japanese nationalists (Asahina 2006). Attorney General Francis Biddle and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover advised the president that no further steps were necessary because there had been no proved instances of espionage among west coast Japanese after Pearl Harbor (Asahina 2006). Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated that the military had no factual evidence of Japanese espionage, and that, “it should have taken more substantial findings to justify this sort of discrimination, even in wartime” (Asahina 2006). Even if Japanese spies posed a genuine danger to national security, FDR’s response of relocating an entire ethnic group was disproportionate to the threat.
In addition to the inappropriate executive order, FDR prolonged the internment by placing his own political agenda before the rights of his own citizens. His actions are unacceptable in the U.S. political system by failing to provide moral leadership and succumbing to the influence of racial prejudices. In early 1944, FDR wrote he wanted a gradual release of Japanese Americans based on “how many families would be acceptable to public opinion in definite west coast localities…for the sake of internal quiet” (Asahina 2006). Seeking to be reelected for an unprecedented 4th term as president, public opinion was of upmost importance. He was an adamant supporter of social engineering by redistributing Japanese American families evenly across the U.S. to induce the smallest backlash (Asahina 2006). He even suggested placing Japanese families on farms in every county in the U.S. because it would be less noticeable (Robinson 2001). It wasn’t until after he was elected for his 4th term did FDR address the overdue release of Japanese Americans. Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, wanted to address the release long before, but had been ignored by FDR for months. Finally, three days after he was elected, FDR met with Ickes and discussed closing the camps (Asahina 2006). This makes it clear that FDR’s motive was political, not military. There is also evidence of racial prejudice on the part of the president. In private conversations, Roosevelt’s opinion of the Japanese was extremely negative. He thought Japanese leaders were aggressive by blood and said in 1942 that the Japanese were “treacherous people,” while mocking Japanese speech patterns (Robinson, 120). Throughout the course of the war, German, Italian, and Russian Americans were not relocated or detained. This begs the question: why were Japanese Americans targeted by an Executive Order that gave no mention to race? Reports on evacuation plans from General DeWitt of the West Coast Defense Command, who advised FDR on internment, reveal “official racism that informed DeWitt’s decision and the government manipulation of evidence that had taken place in the course of the wartime court cases” (Robinson 2001). Personal Justice Denied, a report on Executive Order 9066 from the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC), states that FDR’s actions were not justified by military necessity, and, “the causes that shaped these decisions were race prejudice, war hysteria and failure of political leadership” (Robinson 2001). A president who acts on racial prejudices and disregards the rights of citizens is unacceptable in any political system and is unfit to hold office.
The revoke of Executive Order 9066 by President Gerald Ford in 1976 only confirms that the internment of the Japanese was a mistake (Robinson 2009). It was further redressed when President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which offered a national apology for executive order 9066 and monetary restitution for 60,000 Japanese Americans. The act was symbolically significant in reaffirming the constitutional civil rights and liberties of U.S. citizens. It also served as a promise by the government to never again infringe on the rights of its own citizens solely on the basis of race (Hatamiya, 1). It is clear FDR did not weigh the racial or constitutional implications of Order 9066.
By the Take Care Clause, the president must take care that laws be faithfully executed. FDR failed to protect the constitutional rights of his citizens. His actions following Executive Order 9066 violated the constitution, overstepped the president’s constitutional powers, and were unacceptable, even in a time of war. According to author Robert Asahina, he lacked empathy for Japanese Americans, who’s “only crime was looking like the enemy.”
Works Cited
Asahina, Robert. 2006. Just Americans: How Japanese Americans Won a War at Home and
Abroad. New York: Gotham Books.
Constitution of the United States. (2017, February 15).
https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm
Hatamiya, Leslie T. 1993. Righting a Wrong. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Robinson, Greg. 2009. A Tragedy of Democracy: Japanese Confinement in North America. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Robinson, Greg. 2001. By Order of the President: FDR and the Internment of Japanese
Americans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Roosevelt, Franklin D. 1942. “Executive Order No. 9066.” National Archives.
https://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/todays-doc/?dod-date=219
Toyosabura Korematsu v. United States. 1944. 323 U.S. 214; 89 L. Ed. 194.
U.S. Congress. Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians. 1982. Personal
Justice Denied. https://www.archives.gov/research/japanese-americans/justice-denied (October 21, 2018).
PRESIDENTIAL POWER EXPERT
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt held office from 1933 to 1945. In serving four terms, Roosevelt fought both the Great Depression and the second World War. The context of the historical moment presented President Roosevelt with previously unseen opportunities for the expansion of presidential power and the chance for high-risk, high reward gambles with the United States Constitution. When examining the implications of his actions in the greater context of the Presidency, historians and political scientists alike note the magnitude of his power when in office.
One such example of President Roosevelt’s expansion of presidential powers is Executive Order 9066, which was signed into law on February 19, 1942. The order authorizes the Secretary of War to prescribe military areas in the wake of World War II and the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. These military areas could be set and furnished by the Secretary of War, as justified by a time of national crisis (Executive Order 9066, 1942). He claimed, “whereas successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense…” (Executive Order 9066, 1942). Ultimately, however, Executive Order 9066 would be used to create and justify internment camps for Japanese foreigners and Japanese Americans alike, dotting the western United States with military-created-and-run tent cities. These internment camps have been critiqued and questioned on the basis of their morality, but the United States Supreme Court has not elected to judge questions of their constitutionality.
CONSTITUTION
The Constitution dictates powers to the president as in Article II. With this, the President of the is dictated ambiguous powers where the president must balance the immeasurable sense of responsibility against the checks and balances of a three-branch government. The first of the president’s given powers is written into Section 1 of Article II, where the oath of office holds the president to the promise to “’faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States’” (U.S Constitution). One of the ways in which the president is to do this is by their next immediately given power. In Section II, they are given control of the military as Commander in Chief. In this capacity, it is their Constitutional duty to protect and defend Americans and American interests.
Dr. Ryan Barilleaux contends that the powers of the president combined with their sense of responsibility to the nation drive presidents to acts of “venture constitutionalism,” which is an action of the president that extends beyond the authority of the president as seen previously or as written in the Constitution (Barilleaux, n.d.). Barilleaux further describes venture constitutionalism as actions that are generally unilateral, occurring in situations that protect the institutional interests of the presidency, promote American security and advance national interests, and/or increase the president’s influence in shaping policy (Barilleaux, n.d.). Examining FDR’s Executive Order through this lens, it is easy to see that the actions of the president were also those of a venture constitutionalist. No president prior had taken an executive order to create internment camps, making a unilateral decision in the interest of claimed national security.
PRESIDENCY
President Roosevelt was preceded by an era of Traditional Presidents. Just the 32nd president, the legacy created by men before him is one marked by a restrained executive. However, there are cases throughout the era of Traditional Presidencies where the president has expanded his power. How each of these acts compares to Executive Order 9066 is essential in analyzing its implications on Presidential Power. Three American presidents in the time between the founding and the turn of the 20th Century made decisions that impacted not just the nation, but reshaped the institutional presidency: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln.
In 1789, America, in its infancy, faced a potential war with France. Fearful of French-residents sympathizing with the French in the looming war, Congress pushed for a series of laws to attempt to prevent catastrophe. In doing so, John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1789. These Acts worked in unison to expand the powers of the President. One such expansion of power was the ability the “Act Concerning Aliens” and the “Act Respecting Alien Enemies” gave to the President to deport foreigners deemed dangerous to the United States as well as arrest and imprison aliens from an enemy-nation during wartime (Alien and Sedition Acts, 1789). The Alien and Sedition Acts are in many ways, an ancestral precedent to Executive Order 9066. Both are baked into Article II, Section II, which places the president at the helm of war efforts as Commander in Chief. However, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by Congress and signed by the president, while FDR wrote and signed Executive Order 9066, which was a more unilateral display of power in the interest of the nation’s security.
Adams was not the only early president to justify bold strokes of power during wartime. During the Napoleonic Wars, the United States was again met with circumstance that would require stretching of Presidential Powers. As Britain and France warred with one another, the United States was put into a unique economic position that tested their neutrality as a blossoming nation (Monticello, n.d). President Thomas Jefferson stretched the role of the president by addressing Congress during this turbulent time to make a recommendation for legislation. In remarks to Congress on December 18, 1807, he said, “I deem it my duty to recommend the subject to the consideration of Congress, who will doubtless perceive all the advantages which may be expected from an inhibition of the departure of our vessels from the ports of the United States.” (Monticello, nd.). This was one of the very first instances where a president would make a direct call for legislation. Like President Adams, Jefferson elected to do so to avoid escalation of a war. Jefferson, here, provides precedent for presidents in the future to push legislation in times of crisis. It expands upon the moves made by Adams, however, in working with Congress, it is unlike FDR’s unilateral order.
As America aged in war-time experience and president’s formulated their role, action of the presidents began to more closely resemble FDR’s Executive Order 9066. During the heat of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus. In doing so, he suspended the right of a prisoner or detainee to come before a court to pass judgement on the legality of their imprisonment or detention. The United States Supreme Court ruled that President Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus, but Lincoln pressed on, holding firm to the notion that this was the only way to keep the United States a united body (History.com, 2018). In direct defiance of the Court, Lincoln would continue to keep the suspension, again, justifying his decision with the threat of the nation’s destruction. Lincoln’s decision was defiant, in many ways, of the U.S Constitution, but it most closely relates to the decision made by FDR to allow for internment camps to be created by Executive Order 9066. Lincoln saw immediate threat on United States soil and unilaterally elected to infringe on individual rights in order to defend the Constitution and the Nation in a time of severe national crisis. In doing so, he dramatically expanded the power of the president during wartime.
Finally, In the Neo-Traditionalist era, America saw Woodrow Wilson work tirelessly to expand the powers of the president. Many of his actions were revolutionary in shaping the president’s power. In the midst of World War I, President Wilson would use the power of the presidency to defend the constitution by signing off on the Espionage Act of 1917. The controversial legislation was aimed at tamping down perceived threats to national security on American soil by prohibiting any sort of interference or disloyalty to the United States and its efforts abroad (Carter, 2018). The Espionage Act has had a lasting impact on the United States government and its federal powers. Although this was not an executive order made by the President, the Espionage Act was called for by the President in his State of the Union address two years prior. He told Congress of what he perceived to be a great threat:
“There are citizens of the United States, I blush to admit, born under other flags but welcomed under our generous naturalization laws to the full freedom and opportunity of America, who have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life; who have sought to bring the authority and good name of our Government into contempt, to destroy our industries wherever they thought it effective for their vindictive purposes to strike at them, and to debase our politics to the uses of foreign intrigue” (Wilson, 1915).
His use of the State of the Union address to call for legislative action was a way of increasing the powers of the presidency in modernity.
IMPEACHMENT
If the Senate were to call for Impeachment during the Roosevelt presidency, they must have done so “For, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” (US Constitution) Following the trial, if the Senate were to remove the President, the consequences would be monumental. In contrast, acquittal would be less extreme in its perceived and felt effects.
If the President were to be removed for his actions, the biggest implication would be prevention of the president from taking unilateral action in the interest of national security during wartime. As Commander in Chief, it is the responsibility of the president to command and guide the nation as he sees fit during wartime. Removing the president for an instance war-time command would drastically alter the President’s capability to respond to threats in the future.
Furthermore, if President Roosevelt were to be impeached and removed for his actions surrounding the internment camps, it would fundamentally redefine scholarly understanding of the grounds for presidential impeachment. In a paper delivered to Congress in the wake of President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, legal scholars Frank Bowman and Stephen Sepinuck, on behalf of the NACDL catalogued an account of the American understanding and use of impeachment. They write that the Constitution provides reasons for impeachment as treason, the giving or taking of bribes, or similar actions to these in seriousness, as long as they “strike at the heart of democratic order” (Bowman and Sepinuck, 1998). Applying this same line of thinking to FDR’s case, removal would equate war-time actions that have some president in previous presidential action to treason or bribery.
The largest argument for removal of FDR would be based on the grounds that Executive Order 9066 was used to discriminate against minorities. If the president were to be removed for his actions, one implication could be the heightened protection of minorities in the United States, even during times of war. However, the United States Supreme Court had already refused examination of Executive Order 9066 during the Roosevelt presidency. In Korematsu v. US (1944), Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court in a case directly relating to Executive Order 9066. Justice Black remarked on the Order as only necessity, marking the treatment of Japanese and Japanese-Americans as constitutional by upholding the corresponding case related to curfew and stating, “Citizenship has its responsibilities, as well as its privileges, and, in time of war, the burden is always heavier” (Korematsu v. U.S, 1944).
With this understanding of the law and of the Constitution, if the President Franklin D. Roosevelt were to be acquitted in the impeachment process, America would hold on to a well-serviced understanding of impeachment, while at the same time, expanding the president’s powers during wartime. Roosevelt’s acquittal in the impeachment trials would uphold the Korematsu rulings, move forward with a defined role of impeachment, and allow for future presidents to exercise unilateral war-powers in situations where they are required in defense of the Constitution.
WORKS CITED
“Alien and Sedition Acts (1798).” Our Documents – Alien and Sedition Acts (1798). https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=16 (October 16, 2018).
Barileaux, Ryan J. “What Is Venture Constitutionalism?” https://miamioh.instructure.com/courses/83758/pages/1-dot-1-perspective-what-is-venture-constitutionalism?module_item_id=1239789 (October 15, 2018).
Carter, Joe. 2018. “What You Should Know About the Espionage Act.” Providence. https://providencemag.com/2018/01/know-espionage-act/ (October 17, 2018).
Executive Order 9066, 1942
“Embargo of 1807 | Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello.” Embargo of 1807 | Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello. https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/embargo-1807 (October 15, 2018).
“Korematsu v. United States.” Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/323/214 (October 17, 2018).
“President Lincoln Suspends the Writ of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.” 2018. History.com. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-lincoln-suspends-the-writ-of-habeas-corpus-during-the-civil-war (October 17, 2018).
“State of the Union Address: Woodrow Wilson (December 7, 1915).” Infoplease. © 2000-2017 Sandbox Networks, Inc., publishing as Infoplease. 17 Oct. 2018 <https://www.infoplease.com/homework-help/us-documents/state-union-address-woodrow-wilson-december-7-1915/>.
PUNDIT
On the morning of December 7th 1941 Japan launched a surprise military attack on the US naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The attack prompted President Franklin Roosevelt to issue his famous Infamy Speech to the American people calling for a declaration of war on the Japanese Empire. Concerns increased in the weeks following the attack as many Americans questioned the loyalty of the Japanese Americans living in the United States and the possibility of espionage. A little over two months after the attacks President Roosevelt, in an act of venture constitutionalism, signed Executive Order 9066. Roosevelt states in the order:
I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion. (Executive Order. No. 9066, 1942.)
The order gave United States military commanders the authority to exclude any people from designated areas as a defense measure to protect against spying and espionage. Roosevelt and his cabinet members issued the order knowing it would be used to quarantine those of japanese ancestry (Kashima 1982). The executive order proved to be controversial as the conditionality of the order was put under question. Many americans supported the order believing it would increase their safety while others saw the measure as unconstitutional or a waste of resources (Anti Defamation League 2013).
Not long after the Pearl Harbor attack President Roosevelt appointed a commission known as the Roberts Commission in order to investigate and uncover facts about the attack. Associate Justice Owen Roberts headed the commission and reported the findings to congress. The report contained information about “Japanese Spies” stating:
There were, prior to December 7, 1941, Japanese spies on the island of
Oahu. Some were Japanese consular agents and others were persons having
no open relations with the Japanese foreign service. These spies
collected and, through various channels transmitted, information to the
Japanese Empire respecting the military and naval establishments and
dispositions on the island (Roberts Commision 1941).
This discovery led the west coast media to report on those of Japanese ancestry in a more negative light regardless of the text in the report being quite vague. There is significant evidence to show that this statement from the report played a large roll in the change of public opinion of Japanese americans on the west coast. General John L Dewitt in a conversation with California Governor Culbert Olsen stated “There’s a tremendous volume of public opinion now developing against the Japanese of all classes, that is aliens and non-aliens, to get them off the land… Since the publication of the Roberts Report they feel that they are living in the midst of a lot of enemies. They don’t trust the Japanese, none of them (Guiding the United States and Its Outposts 1964).” General John L Dewitt proved himself to be not only a supporter of the Japanese Internment operations but also a key orchestrater. He saw the action as a military necessity and served as an influence on President Roosevelt in crafting and signing Executive Order 9066. General Dewitt in his Final Report; Japanese evacuation from the West Coast, 1942 argued that thousands of Japanese americans living in the United States went back to Japan to receive their education and as a result became indoctrinated as pro-japanese before returning to the United States (Dewitt 1942).
The Supreme Court: Korematsu v. United States
Fred Korematsu was a Japanese American man who violated Executive Order 9066 by deciding to stay at his home in San Leandro California. He argued that the order was unconstitutional because it violated the Fifth Amendment to the United States constitution. In a 6-3 decision the court sided with the government holding that the executive order was constitutional (Korematsu v. United States 1944). Justice Hugo Black wrote the decision and argued that in times of war it is necessary to defer to congress and military authorities to take the necessary security measures. Justice Black states:
Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders—as inevitably it must—determined that they should have the power to do just this.(Korematsu v. United States 1944)
Justice Black essentially argued that the seriousness of the situation of being at war and the need to protect against espionage eclipsed the rights of Americans with Japanese ancestry. Obviously not all supreme court justices held the same opinion as Black. Justice Murphy, Justice Roberts, and Justice Jackson all wrote dissenting opinions. In his dissent Justice Frank Murphy argues that Executive Order 9066 deprived Americans of Japanese Ancestry equal protection under the law designated by the fifth amendment. Justice Murphy states, “Being 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 (Korematsu v. United States 1944).” The fifth amendment of the United States says that no citizen shall be deprived of life liberty or property without the due process of law. A Japanese american citizen such as Fred Korematsu has not been charged with any true crime, other than the fact that his parents are Japanese. Due to this provision in the fifth amendment the United states government should have no power to deny Korematsu or any Japanese american citizen their constitutional rights ( U.S. Const. Amend. V).
It is clear that the vast majority of the American public wanted to see Americans of Japanese ancestry interned whether it be out of concern for safety or racial prejudice. With extra pressure from military authorities and supposed evidence of espionage many would say President Roosevelt did what he saw necessary to maintain national security in a time of crisis. At the same time, as Korematsu and 3 supreme court justices saw it, Executive Order 9066 did violate the constitution. Many will argue that President Roosevelt used his power to protect the United States in an unprecedented situation while others will see this act as nothing more than a grave injustice.
References
Kashima, Tetsuden. “Justice Denied.” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, www.archives.gov/research/japanese-americans/justice-denied.
“UNDERSTANDING THE CIVIL LIBERTIES ACT OF 1988.” Anti Defamation League, www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/education-outreach/Understanding-the-Civil-Liberties-Act-of-1988.pdf.
Executive Order. No. 9066, 1942.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5154
Dewitt, John L. “Japanese Evacuation from the West Coast 1942.” Received by Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, Washington DC, 5 June 1943, Washington DC.
https://archive.org/details/japaneseevacuati00dewi/page/n0
United States, Congress, 77Th Congress, 2nd session. “REPORT OF THE COMMISSION APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ATTACK MADE BY JAPANESE ARMED FORCES UPON PEARL HARBOR IN THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII ON DECEMBER 7, 1941.” REPORT OF THE COMMISSION APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ATTACK MADE BY JAPANESE ARMED FORCES UPON PEARL HARBOR IN THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII ON DECEMBER 7, 1941, vol. 8.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/roberts/roberts.html
Conn, Stetson; Engelman, Rose C.; Fairchild, Byron (2000) [1964]. Guarding the United States and its Outposts. United States Army in World War II. Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, United States Army. p. 120-123.
United States Supreme Court. Korematsu v. United States. 18 Dec. 1944, www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/323/214.
United States Constitution. Amendment. V
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
you will evaluate the cases and how they have affected your understanding of presidential power. Part I has five questions asking about the cases. There are no wrong answers, but you will be graded on the quality (thoughtfulness, completeness) of your answers.
When you have completed Part I, be sure to complete Part II
Considering only the cases you did not contribute to (but which you read and voted on), which group case file was the most effective overall in presenting its case, and why? Write a brief statement (50 words or fewer)
Which case was most surprising to you, and why? For example, it could be that this case caused you to re-think your previous views, or it caused you to consider whether the particular president really had gone to far, or whatever. Write a brief statement (50 words or fewer) identifying and explaining your answer.
Which individual memorandum (of all cases and roles that you read in Step 3) was most effective, and why? Explain briefly (50 words or fewer)
Did any (or all) of the cases you read (as a senator) or worked on (as a contributor) cause you to change your thinking of the president or the case? Why or why not? Explain.
How did participation in this exercise affect your view of presidential power? Did it influence your thinking about when assertive presidential action is necessary and when it is not? Briefly explain (50 words or fewer)
————————–Two assignment———————-
Write a brief reflection statement on how well you think that the Impeachment Project helped to achieve the course learning objectives (200 words or fewer). You do NOT have to address every learning objective (unless you want to), but the best reflections will contain explicit references to the some (or all) of the learning objectives (identify by title, as in “POL-1” or “PRES-2.”)
Here is a reminder of specific learning objectives associated with the Project (research project):
• POL-1. Our majors will be able to define and explain political science concepts, theories and approaches.
• POL-2. Our majors will demonstrate skill in evidence-based reasoning from identifying the appropriate data or evidence necessary to construct a convincing argument to constructing and communicating that argument.
• PRES-1. Students will be able to define & explain key analytical concepts related to the American presidency.
• PRES-2. Students will be able to describe the constitutional basis of the American presidency.
• PRES-3. Students will be able to describe how and why presidential power has expanded over time.
• PRES-6. Students will demonstrate skill in evidence-based reasoning to construct analyses of how a president’s goals and political/institutional interests influence presidential action.
• PRES-9. Students will be able to apply analytical concepts to explain contemporary political events, developments, and actions.
