Imagine you are living in Los Angeles in 1944 and have just read about the case of Korematsu v. the United States. Write a letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times telling which opinion in the case (majority or dissenting) you support and explain why.

Help please? I have no clue what to write. thank you!

Look up Korematsu v. United States in Wikipedia.

Read everything carefully.

Notice that there is the majority opinion (Decision) and two dissenting opinions (Murphy's and Jackson's).

Which do you agree with? The Decision or one of the dissenting opinions?

Why?

thank you. :)

Dear Editor,

I am writing to express my thoughts on the recent case of Korematsu v. the United States. Having read about the decision, I find myself compelled to tap into the ongoing discussion surrounding the majority and dissenting opinions.

After careful consideration, I fully support the dissenting opinion in this case. While it is important to acknowledge the complex circumstances that the United States faced during World War II, the majority's decision to uphold the constitutionality of Japanese internment camps raises serious concerns about the protection of civil rights and individual liberties.

In the majority opinion, the Court justified the government's actions on the grounds of military necessity. They argued that the threat of espionage and sabotage by Japanese Americans living on the West Coast presented a legitimate reason for the internment camps. However, this decision disregards fundamental constitutional rights, such as due process and equal protection under the law, which should be upheld even in times of national crisis.

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Frank Murphy, eloquently voiced the potential dangers of allowing such a precedent to stand. He argued that the Constitution should serve as a safeguard against arbitrary governmental actions, stating that "racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life."

Justice Murphy's reasoning aligns with the principles of our nation's founding, rooted in respect for individual rights and equal treatment for all citizens. He recognized that the government's actions in forcibly relocating and detaining Japanese Americans based solely on their heritage cast a cloud of suspicion and violated their basic rights.

Furthermore, the dissenting opinion expressed concerns about the potential long-term repercussions of the majority's decision. Murphy warned that by sanctioning such racial discrimination, the Court was not only harming the Japanese American community but endangering the trust and integrity of our constitutional system for future generations.

In hindsight, history has demonstrated the injustice inflicted upon Japanese Americans during this tumultuous period. The internment camps, though initially justified as a necessary security measure, have been widely recognized as a violation of human rights, leading to a formal apology and the awarding of reparations to surviving internees.

As residents of Los Angeles in 1944, it is crucial for us to critically assess the actions of our government and protect the principles that define our democracy. In supporting the dissenting opinion in Korematsu v. the United States, we not only stand against racial discrimination but also safeguard the ideals upon which our nation was founded.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

Dear Editor,

I am writing to share my perspective on the recent Korematsu v. United States case that has stirred widespread debate amongst the citizens of Los Angeles. After carefully considering both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion, I find myself aligning with the dissenting opinion put forth by Justice Murphy.

In this landmark case, the majority opinion upheld the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which authorized the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II based solely on their ancestry. However, I believe that Justice Murphy's dissenting opinion presents a more compelling argument, grounded in principles of constitutional rights and personal liberties.

To understand why I support the dissenting opinion, one must first grasp the context of the case. In 1942, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Executive Order 9066 was issued, leading to the forced relocation and internment of approximately 120,000 Japanese-Americans without any credible evidence suggesting they posed a threat to national security. Justice Murphy raised a fundamental question through his dissent: whether the government's actions violated the basic principles of due process and equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution.

Justice Murphy rightly emphasized that the internment of Japanese-Americans was not based on any genuine military necessity but rather on racial prejudice and fear. By singling out an entire racial group due to the actions of a few, the government not only violated the principles of equal protection but also undermined the very essence of liberty and justice.

Furthermore, the legal basis on which the majority opinion was constructed rests heavily on the notion of "military necessity" and the broad deference given to the executive branch during times of war. While acknowledging the importance of national safety and security, Justice Murphy argued that the government should not have unlimited power to infringe upon the rights of individuals without sufficient justification. He emphasized that constitutional rights cannot be summarily suspended during times of crisis.

As a resident of Los Angeles in 1944, I can see the immense impact this case has had on our community and its relationship with Japanese-Americans. It is vital to remember that many innocent citizens were forcefully removed from their homes, stripped of their possessions, and held under the cloud of suspicion merely because of their Japanese ancestry. This unjust treatment is something that should never be forgotten or repeated, as it goes against the principles upon which our nation was founded.

In conclusion, I wholeheartedly support Justice Murphy's dissenting opinion in Korematsu v. United States. His eloquent arguments challenging the constitutionality of the internment policy resonate deeply with me. The case serves as a reminder that we must continually strive to uphold the principles of justice, equality, and individual rights, even in the face of national crises.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

[Your Address]

[City, State, ZIP]

[Date]