...United States was a court case that arose in 1944. In the early stages of World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt issued the Executive Order 9066, which granted the power to the United States military to remove Americans of Japanese descent from their homes and forced them into internment camps. Fred Korematsu, an American-born citizen with a Japanese lineage, refused to leave his home in California, resulting in his arrest. He appealed his conviction and his case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. A 6-3 majority of the Court upheld the conviction placed on Fred Korematsu. Civil liberties were a huge subject for Justice Hugo Black, the speaker for the 6-3 majority, yet he agreed with the policy of internment. Like most people of the time, Justice Hugo Black believed that setting the Japanese American free would be like giving the enemy an easy way to infiltrate the United States. I believe that the internment of the Japanese Americans was a precautionary necessity in order for peace of mind and...
Words: 897 - Pages: 4
...Christian Marble SECTION #:22230408 Date:11/12/13 Korematsu v. United States U.S. Supreme Court 1944 Facts: In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Executive Order 9066. This order allowed the United States military to section off parts of the US as military areas. In these areas they were trying to exclude specific groups of people from them. The group they were trying to exclude were the Japanese-Americans because they were believed to be acting as spies and sending signals to enemy submarines. The order requested that many Japanese-Americans leave their homes and business. However, many were forcibly removed from their homes and placed in internment camps during World War II. Frank Korematsu, a US-born man of Japanese descent, knowingly resisted the order to be relocated. Korematsu was later arrested and convicted for remaining in a “Military Area.” His case went to the Supreme Court where it was decided that exclusion orders based on Executive Order 9066 were in fact constitutional. Therefore, his conviction was upheld. Issue: Does Congress and the Executive possess the power to exclude persons of racial minority groups from a areas in the United States? Rule: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Korematsu for violating the exclusion order forcing all persons of Japanese ancestry from designated military areas. The strict scrutiny test was applied here and the court found that the government's actions were valid. Application of Rule: ...
Words: 392 - Pages: 2
...Christian Marble SECTION #:22230408 Date:11/12/13 Korematsu v. United States U.S. Supreme Court 1944 Facts: In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Executive Order 9066. This order allowed the United States military to section off parts of the US as military areas. In these areas they were trying to exclude specific groups of people from them. The group they were trying to exclude were the Japanese-Americans because they were believed to be acting as spies and sending signals to enemy submarines. The order requested that many Japanese-Americans leave their homes and business. However, many were forcibly removed from their homes and placed in internment camps during World War II. Frank Korematsu, a US-born man of Japanese descent, knowingly resisted the order to be relocated. Korematsu was later arrested and convicted for remaining in a “Military Area.” His case went to the Supreme Court where it was decided that exclusion orders based on Executive Order 9066 were in fact constitutional. Therefore, his conviction was upheld. Issue: Does Congress and the Executive possess the power to exclude persons of racial minority groups from a areas in the United States? Rule: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Korematsu for violating the exclusion order forcing all persons of Japanese ancestry from designated military areas. The strict scrutiny test was applied here and the court found that the government's actions were valid. Application of Rule: ...
Words: 392 - Pages: 2
...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...
Words: 2532 - Pages: 11
...American fear and suspicion was a cultural and social factor that caused the internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War. Operating out of a position of fear, paranoia, and skepticism, President Roosevelt signed an internment order that relocated all Japanese Americans who had Japanese ancestry and Japanese people in camps on the West Coast of the United States. The fear was that the Japanese were plotting another surprise attack and tha0t Japanese spies, or those who could operate as spies, needed to be rounded up and given a loyalty oath to the nation. The government thought that all Japanese ancestry would stay loyal to their ground no matter what. The camps, which were relocated, lacked effective medical care, and were situated in the desert, subject to extremely hot temperatures. The stress of being relocated and living a life in camps had adverse physical and psychological effects on many. At the same time, the consequence of the internment was that the court concluded that many of the Constitutional Rights of the detainees had been violated, under the Habeas Corpus clause of the Constitution. At the same time, I would suggest that the internment of Japanese Americans displayed a level of contradictory behavior in American policy and its ideals. A nation predicated upon individual freedom and liberty was denying it to a group, about 2/3 of who were Americans. Finally, another consequence was that while America stood strong in its commitment to European...
Words: 503 - Pages: 3
...“The petitioner, an American citizen of Japanese descent, was convicted in a federal district court for remaining in San Leandro, California.” This quote shows how Korematsu was getting removed from his home and how he probably did not want to leave. Many argued for Korematsu on why forcing him out of his own home was bad and unruly. Unfortunately, Korematsu lost the case and was removed from his home. This was entirely unnecessary and unruly because Korematsu was a normal Japanese American citizen with his own liberty and rights. He wanted to stay in his own home and didn’t want to leave when the warnings of relocation were sent out. But still… Korematsu should not have been pulled from his home, for he had done nothing wrong. The U.S. government chose to follow through with this task as protection to the United States. They thought that even though they are born here, they are still with Japan, as a threat. Why though would you do this to very innocent people? What if they had lost jobs and homes, would they have like it… probably not! This was not the correct way to handle their situation and I think they should have tackled it in a much better...
Words: 818 - Pages: 4
...In 1942 the United States was just recovering from the Pearl Harbor bombings by the Japanese and was fully embroiled in the fighting of World War II aiding the Allied powers. In February President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 allowing the declaration of “military areas” along the Pacific Coast of the United States. This declaration allowed the segregation and internment of “specified” individuals, namely all Japanese and Japanese-American’s within the areas. Fred Korematsu, an American citizen, failing to report for relocation by having plastic surgery to alter his appearance was discovered and arrested in May. In September he was convicted in federal court, and in September of 1944 the case was brought before the supreme court, Korematsu v. United States. The ruling held by the court was a decision against Korematsu with a...
Words: 442 - Pages: 2
...Kaitlyn Boggs POSC 311 Professor Fox Mon 6:30 – 9:15 PM Case Brief: Marbury v. Madison Case Name and Citation: Korematsu v. U.S., 323 U.S. 214 (1944) Facts: A Japanese American who resided in California stayed in the state after the Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 was enacted. This order was put into place to keep Japanese citizens out of military areas during time of war after the Pearl Harbor attacks. This Japanese American was convicted in a Federal District Court where the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision and The Supreme Court chose to grant certiorari to examine the constitutionality of the order because of its racial contents. The Japanese American involved was aware of the order in place and he was aware that he was violating this order which came from the Executive Order No. 9066 of the president after the Pearl Harbor attacks. Issue: Whether it is constitutional for Congress and the president to exclude Japanese people from certain areas within their war powers. Rule: The Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for...
Words: 513 - Pages: 3
...Hamdi v. Rumsfeld Issue When a U.S. citizen is labeled as an enemy combatant, is he entitled to the constitutional protections of due process? Holding and Reasoning(O’Connor, J.) Yes. A U.S. citizen accused of being an enemy combatant must be afforded an opportunity to be heard by a neutral decision maker. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to due process under the law. Furthermore, absent suspension, all persons detained in the United States have the right to habeas corpus. This means that an individual accused of criminal activity cannot be detained indefinitely, with no trial, no counsel, and no ability to petition for freedom if he is wrongfully imprisoned. In the case of a citizen, like Hamdi, who is alleged to be an enemy combatant and the right to habeas corpus has not been suspended, there are competing interests: on one hand, there is the individual’s personal interest in physical liberty; on the other hand, there is the government interest in the safety of the American people, and preventing enemy combatants from committing further crimes. These interests must be carefully balanced in coming to a decision about the constitutionality of detaining enemy combatants. Therefore, this court finds that a citizen-detainee must be afforded notice of the crimes with which he is charged and the factual basis for them, and he must also be given an opportunity to refute the charges before a neutral decision maker. Under these criteria, Hamdi has...
Words: 1061 - Pages: 5
...supreme court has dealt with many controversial issues. The courts decisions in these cases have had a significant impact on the nation. Two such cases were Schenck v. United States and Korematsu v. United States. Both cases took place in a time of war when personal freedoms had to be sacrificed for the good of america. While the government is supposed to protect the people, sometimes, it actually limits their rights instead. The decision of the court in these cases drastically changed the lives of not only those involved in the case, but all other american citizens. Schenck v. United States took place in 1919, during World War One. When the war broke out in Europe, the United States remained neutral and...
Words: 838 - Pages: 4
...militias forced Japanese-Americans to leave their homes and belongings and placed them in camps or military exclusion zones that were much like a concentration camp. Unfortunately, The camp condition was generally so poor and placed in intense environment which resulted many Japanese to duffer and even die. Moreover, Japanese unwilling to cooperate with the military officials by refusing to relocate where brought to trial and arrested. For example, a California born Japanese man named Fred Korematsu was arrested for his refusal to relocate to one of the ten Internment camps. In the court case Korematsu v. United, Justice Owens, Justice Roberts, and Justice Jackson sided with Korematsu and believed that the Interment camp and the actions of the military towards Korematsu were unconstitutional. They argued that Korematsu faced racial discrimination and has done no real crime and suggest Korematsu to be released. However, in 1944, the majority of the Supreme Court justices ruled in Korematsu v. United Stated that the internment camps were indeed constitutional as it serves as a military necessity in times of war. In conclusion, The Internment camp proves to show that during the war, political leaders were driven by fear of Japanese invasion. And with great hysteria, many seemed to forget that the hundreds and thousands of Japanese placed in the camps are American citizens and were born and raised in America like those that placed them in the camp. Although, later on the government...
Words: 554 - Pages: 3
...In the Supreme Court cases Dred Scott v. Sandford from 1857 and Korematsu v. United States from 1944 they both used dehumanizing language. The case Dred Scott v. Sanford finished in ruling that if you were part of the black community, whether or not you were free, you were not a citizen and therefore not allowed to sue. In Korematsu v. United States, it ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of citizenship. By analyzing Dred Scott v. Sandford and comparing it to court case to Korematsu v. United States and Korematsu v. United States one can see the discriminatory language used against those that belong to particular races and the events that have happened throughout history. This is significant because these cases dehumanized and stripped people of their identities because of their race....
Words: 512 - Pages: 3
...US case. Fred Korematsu was a Japanese American citizen who was a victim of the internment camp. He reasoned that there was no due process and that the accusations were based on racial discrimination. Neither judges nor the jury convicted him of a crime and there were no evidences of Korematsu being a threat; there were no threats of Japanese invasion as well. He even tried to enlist as a soldier after the attack on Pearl Harbor to show his loyalty but was denied due to his Japanese background. Additionally, the 14th amendment guaranteed equal protection despite race. In contrast, though, the Supreme Court agreed with the government. Although the Supreme Court admitted that this action is normally unconstitutional, they still ruled that the need to protect the United States against espionage override his rights. Korematsu is a citizen and is just like any other American. The Supreme Court, therefore, is essentially saying that peoples' constitutional rights are not...
Words: 645 - Pages: 3
...I chose Frank Murphy primarily for his Supreme Court cases and his involvement with the United States government. Furthermore, he served in World War I and was known as an advocate for individual and Civil rights, which is ironic by his stance in the case of Korematsu v. United States in 1944. He became the mayor of Detroit in 1930 and guided the city through the Great Depression, as well as nominated by President Roosevelt in 1940 to serve on the Supreme Court. Additionally, in the cases of Korematsu v. United States and Wolf v. Colorado individual rights were questioned. I chose Korematsu v. United States because it dealt with the concern of individual rights versus national security. For the majority, it was constitutional to protect a whole...
Words: 293 - Pages: 2
...To begin with, Checks and balances states that not one branch of government can have too much power. Each branch is given a specific power to cover under the rule of check and balances. First, in the Supreme court case Korematsu v. United states the Supreme court orders Japanese americans into interment camps during World War II regardless of citizenship. Both Congress and American public supported the executive branch’s military implemented removal and internment programs. Korematsu appealed his conviction and looked to the Supreme Court for a remedy to restore and protect his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights. The court sided with the government stating that the order was constitutional due to the protection of the country....
Words: 418 - Pages: 2
