1.This part of the assignment pertains to the following reading found in the Constitutional Law Stories text: The Story of Korematsu: The Japanese-American Cases (pp. 231-270) Complete ONE of these tasks: (1a; 1b; 1c)

1a) After the attack on Pearl Harbor more than 120,000 Japanese Americans were forced to live in detention camps and leave the west coast.There are four constitutional cases that connect: Yasui B U.S, Hirabayashi V. United States, Korematsu V United States and Ex parte Endo. When examining these cases the judges did not examine separation but rather examined: curfew, exclusion, detention and indefinite incarceration. In Hirabayashi V. United States Hirabayashi was convicted of violating curfew and not reporting to an …show more content…
The key constitutional issues related to the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford include the issues of slavery, and what constitutes a slave's freedom. Scott, who with his slave owner traveled to the free territory of Missouri, was led to believe that he was released from slavery and could live as a free man in the Minnesota territory. He did not escape into the territory so he could not be considered a fugitive slave and thus could not be brought back to Missouri as a fugitive slave. Ultimately the key issue at hand was the issue of slavery in general and whether Scott was considered a slave in the free territory of Minnesota. Another issue was the issue of the Missouri Compromise, as well as the fugitive slave law. Although his owner did not technically free him, Scott felt that if he was brought to the territory then he was considered free. The court did not know if Scott was a free man or was still considered a slave under the slavery law. Because of the constitutional issue of slavery and the impact that it had on the Scott case, Taney, one of the nine justices serving on the court at the time of the case , wrote in his opinion that “congress lacked the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories and that the Missouri Compromise was therefore unconstitutional” (Eisgruber, 161). Not only did Taney believe that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, but he also believed that by banning slavery in the territories, Congress had deprived slaveholders entering …show more content…
Between 1834 and 1838 Scott’s owner Dr. John Emerson traveled to the state of Illinois taking Scott with him. Slavery was illegal in the state of Illinois during this time and thus Scott believed that by traveling to the state he was emancipated from slavery. It was believed under a common nineteenth century doctrine that owners who transported slaves into free territories or states thereby emancipated them, regardless of whether or not they had intended to free them. All that mattered was whether or not the owner had brought them into the territory under their own will. While Scott was in the free territory of Illinois and Minnesota, he married and created a home with his wife in the territory. Scott later returned to Missouri with Emerson not knowing that he was not a free man. Emerson claimed the Scotts as his slaves until his death in 1843. After Emerson’s death his wife took over the estate and thus assumed control over Dred Scott and his family. The Scott’s assuming they were free, sued Mrs. Emerson for their freedom. The case of Dred Scott’s freedom was taken all the way to the United States Supreme Court where the justices ruled in favor of the Emerson family. Justice Taney whose opinion summarized the entire decision of the court stated that congress lacked the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories and that the Missouri Compromise was therefore