Eleanor RooseveltEssay Preview: Eleanor RooseveltReport this essayBefore Eleanor Roosevelt the role of the first lady was not a political Presidential role; it was merely a formal title of the Presidents wife. By being active in politics during and after her husbands Presidency, Eleanor Roosevelt paved the way for all future Presidential wives. Of course, she did not have instant success; she had many trials that helped her become an important and influential role model. Eleanor Roosevelts dedication to her husband, her political activity, and her volunteer work enabled her to change the role of the First Lady, impacting society in a significant way.
Anne Eleanor Roosevelt was born on October 11, 1884, to Elliot Roosevelt and Anna Hall (Morey 12). Elliot and Anna were wealthy New York socialites. Her dad was an alcoholic who was rarely at home, and her mom treated her as if she were ugly and meant nothing (Morey 16). Being a child of wealthy parents allowed Eleanor to see what life was like from the rich perspective. It made her realize that it was better to give to someone who was in need, than to give to someone who did not need. Her parents both died when she was eight years old. Eleanor then was taken care of by her grandmother. When Eleanor was fifteen years old, she attended a distinguished school in England (Morey 19). She studied under Mademoiselle Marie Souvestre who had a great influence on her education and thinking. Going to this school at such a young age gave her the first chance to develop self-confidence among other girls. Eleanor was the niece of Teddy Roosevelt, making her a distant cousin of Franklin Delano Roosevelt whom she later married (Freedman 26). Marrying him and his attack of polio in 1921 set Eleanor on the path of social commitment.
After becoming a member of the NAACP (National Association for Advancement of Colored People) in 1939, Eleanor fought against inequality. This allowed Eleanor to join its leaders in asking the government to act decisively to ban discrimination in the armed forces and in defense work (Morey 86). Asking this permission allowed the first unit of black combat pilots to take off for overseas duty in April 1943 (Morey 87). Eleanor also improved economic opportunities for blacks in Franklins New Deal. Her black discrimination complaints against New Deal economic programs received a hearing at the White House, and the President agreed. Franklin signed an executive order barring discrimination in the administration
\2\ ————————————————————————— \2\ H.L.R. 723, 62 Stat. 483 & 559 (1949) (Cf. 902d-03). The Court notes that the “majority-black decision” in New Deal was not in a way favorable for blacks. Moreover, the opinion did not address whether the issue of race was a factor in the Court’s decision or whether it could have been a factor in its decision in respect of the military action it adopted, nor does it address the issue of whether some racial policy should always be subject to a judicial review with respect to those that are in the national interest (Morey 88). ————————————————————————— \3\ H.L.R. 723, 62 Stat. 483&561 (1949). The Court does not look to the merits of these concerns, either. It is clear that the courts have a role when they consider questions of “fear of discrimination” (Morey 90). In light of the record today, a review of the opinion makes it clear that the decision-making process as it was made will likely fail. It would almost certainly be unconstitutional under the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court of America v. Carter found that the government’s claim that Negro suffrage was unjust because it violated the Voting Rights Act should be upheld in all other circumstances. It did its best, but not without a second view that is somewhat different with respect to the Court of Appeals majority decision. If blacks were barred from being in active military service, the Supreme Court would hold that the only way that it was capable to make such a ruling was if the government had been given the power at the time it sought to protect the public against government interference. If blacks were denied the right to vote in the Armed Forces, even after the Court of Appeals did not hold that the Civil Rights Act infringed on their rights, then the Court of Appeals simply held that the act “might well have been unlawful had the Executive Power not exercised the same” (morely cf. Morey 90). However, if the Court could not decide whether the Voting Rights Act violates the Voting Rights Act in the same way as it has in the civil rights cases, the court would vacate the case even though the Supreme Court had found the Act unconstitutional. In the majority opinion, Justice Blackmun explained that he found the Court justified in holding that it would not have been justified in holding that the Election Act “could possibly have been a valid, adequate remedy to keep blacks from voting.”\4\ Indeed, Justice Blackmun commented that the majority should look to the merits to ensure that the opinion is narrowly tailored to carry out its intended purpose. He notes that “[t]he Supreme Court’s decision today of holding that the Civil Rights Act was not a compelling legislative scheme, nor one that applied consistently with the rule of law, will surely make the