Is history repeating itself? – Does Government Work?

Chapter 14 is about the Courts. The early 19^thcentury was when the Court first claimed its right to rule on the constitutionality of state and federal legislation. Over time the Court has formed a powerful position for itself in American politics that is equal with the legislative and executive branches. The Supreme Court is the highest level of the Courts. The Supreme Court picks the cases they want to hear, and cases often change depending on who is sitting on the Supreme Court during that time. Recently, the Supreme Court took on the case of President Trumps Travel ban. Trumps policy announced in September a ban on most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.

President Trump has been planning this Travel ban since the very beginning of his presidential campaign, when he said in 2015 “I’m calling, very simply, for a shutdown of Muslims entering in the United States.” Trump has compared his policy to that of former president F.D.R. In 1942 Roosevelt signed an executive order that sent over 110,000 people of Japanese ancestry to internment camps. President Trump is arguing that F.D.R is a president people look up to therefore his policy will make him just as influential. The Supreme Court will hear arguments against President Trumps executive order next Wednesday. Some are fearful of the outcome because the Supreme Court tends to rule in favor of higher institutions and policy makers. As the book states, “The Supreme Court operates on the basis of several widely shared norms: secrecy, seniority, and adherence to precedent.”

In 1942 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of F.D. R’s executive order and the Japanese internment camps were set into action. However, today this decision is viewed as one of the biggest mistakes made by the Court. Will history repeat itself? Has the Supreme Court learned from its past mistakes? If we have made tremendous amount of progress as a country, then why are we contemplating taking steps back? The Supreme Court has progressed from being a group of white Protestant men from top law firms and law schools to now consisting of more women and racial minorities serving in the federal judiciary. Yet with a majority of the justices on the Court being Catholic there still leaves the uncertainty of not all parties being represented equally.

Although there are major differences between F.D. R’s executive order and Trump’s there is still the sense of it targeting a specific group of people because of preconceived notions. Is this fair? Have we as a country really progressed as much as we think we have? In December, the Supreme Court allowed the lasted travel ban to take effect while the case continued to move forward. Unlike other Supreme Court cases, the Court has decided to release an audio recording of the arguments. This is due to the fact that it is likely to face historical

scrutiny.https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/22/trumps-travel-ban-faces-us-supreme-court-showdown.html

Michael De La Cruz says:

April 22, 2018 at 5:28 pm

Hello Katherine, this is a great post.

I believe that both policies enacted by FDR and Trump limit the political freedoms of those affected by the policies. Both presidents sough to ensure the security of our nation by putting measures on those they thought were a threat to our democracy. These measures ensured the popular sovereignty of our citizens would not be hindered by outside influence. However, these policies also stripped away the rights of some of out citizens.

My friend, for example, is having a hard time traveling back to her home country because of the restrictions in place. However if I wanted to travel to Russia, I would not be faced with the same restrictions that she is. This raises the question of whether or not she has the same amount of political freedom as me if she is not allowed travel based on where she is from.

If we take a look at the Ninth Amendment, it states that the enumeration of some rights shall not be interpreted to deny other rights retained by the people. FDR and Trump sought to enumerate the rights of many Americans, but at the same time they denied other rights of people. This might be a contradiction of our constitution, and should be seen as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Source:

https://home.ubalt.edu/shapiro/rights_course/Chapter3text.htm

James Weakley says:

April 22, 2018 at 6:23 pm

Thanks for the great post, Katherine.
I agree that FDR’s policy towards the Japanese during WWII and Trump’s anti-immigration policy draw many similarities. Both policies aim to isolate a certain ethnic or religious group and set up unfair policies that restrict the rights of its members. While the policies are similar in malice against an individual group, the severity of both differs. FDR’s executive order physically moved Japanese Americans into camps where they were tortured, while Trump’s ban will just disallow Muslims that aren’t in the US into the country. Trump’s policy may not be as harsh as FDR’s, but both are unconstitutional and should not be held up by the Supreme Court.
Sadly, FDR’s executive order was approved by the Supreme Court due to war hysteria and resulting from racism at the time. When FDR’s executive order was put into action American’s turned their fear of war into hatred towards the ethnic groups they were fighting overseas. Since the infamous executive order, the United States has apologized for the action through the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. I believe that American politics and the American people have evolved beyond the racist acts of the mid-twentieth century and the anti-immigration policy will not pass. The travel ban violates the freedom of religion and the country’s dedication to tolerance for all. Hopefully, the law comes above the power of President and we don’t make another mistake.