Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
' This vague, amorphous threat posed by Japanese-Americans to the West Coast, of course, was not similarly seen in the faces of Caucasian German-Americans, against whose nation the U.S. was also in military conflict. As eloquently expressed in the dissent by Justice Murphy: "No adequate reason is given for the failure to treat these Japanese-Americans on an individual basis by holding investigations and hearings to separate the loyal from the disloyal, as was done in the case of persons of German and Italian ancestry" (4). This was unconstitutional racism depriving citizens of due process, not based in any concrete intelligence information.
Interestingly enough, during the war many Japanese-Americans served in and died for the American military forces, despite the fact that their entire race was seen as potential traitors, according to the conception of the U.S. military. The dissent of Justice Roberts expressed this sense of injustice: "On the contrary, it is the case of convicting a citizen as a punishment...
Also pointed out in the dissent was the fact that it would not have been unwieldy to hold loyalty hearings for those few whom were suspected of treason -- but this was not done, rather it was simply seen as 'safer' to engage in wholesale internment.
Of course, with the benefit of hindsight it is easy to stay that the actions of the U.S. Supreme Court were wrong in the Korematsu decision. Detaining innocent Japanese-Americans did not enhance U.S. national security, it merely violated U.S. values and diverted needed time and resources away from the war effort. The internment was racially discriminatory and deprived citizens of their due process under the 14th Amendment. It is imperative that we learn the lessons of history whenever we are faced with threats from abroad again and do not commit the same crimes, as many were tempted to judge Muslim-Americans harshly as a group after 9/11.
During World War II, the same fate befell Fred Korematsu, a young Japanese man who violated a law against his presence in California. While he was at least provided with the right to contest his internment, the above-mentioned three persons were not. Indeed, they were not even provided with the right to see their families. No war justifies such blatant disregard for basic human rights. Indeed, the war is not
Analysis: Hamacher was denied admission as a freshman applicant, but would have been admitted if he was a member of an underrepresented minority applicant. Hamacher was able and ready to apply as a transfer student, which gave him standing to seek prospective relief. Therefore, Hamacher had standing to bring the suit, both as a student who was denied admission as a freshman, and as a student seeking admission as a
So who is an American and what an America can or cannot do are questions which are critical to the issue of legalizing immigrants. Does being an American mean you cannot show allegiance to any other country? The images of people raising and waving Mexican flag had enraged many but it need not have. It should be accepted that people who come from different countries would forever hold in their
validity of the two official U.S. government reasons: 1) military necessity and 2) protection of the Japanese-Americans, for the imprisonment of Japanese-American and Japanese Issei during World War II. Be specific in your reasoning and examples. One of the most shocking decisions in the history of American injustices is the official, legalized internment of Japanese-Americans and Japanese Issei during World War II. While Americans fought a war abroad for democracy,
The Supreme Court found that the habeas corpus petition was filed improperly, and therefore the case was dismissed and all previous decisions in other courts overruled. The central issue regarding the power of the president was never decided. Justice Stevens presented a dissent stating that the government failed to give proper notice for Padilla's transfer to military custody I South Carolina. The contention is that the habeas petition would have
Even if the decision might not be popular, wrote the court, "from the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law," and because these procedures are often very complicated to understand, "this noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged