Thus, many consider the declaration to be obiter dictum, i.e. However in doing so, the court explicitly distinguished the two cases. Lengthy Update: The Supreme Court has since declared Korematsu incorrect in Trump v. However, this is an error of fact, and as such the ratio decidendi (legal reasoning) used would still technically stand as precedent. This was confirmed by the Department of Justice in 2011. Second, the convictions against Korematsu and Hirabayashi were overturned in the 1980s based on evidence being possibly concealed by the government. For one, it has been widely condemned, and courts would likely avoid using Korematsu & Hirabayashi if possible, or attempt to make a distinction from them given a slightly different order. However, its effective status as precedent is shaky. The constitution for the purpose of a similar order is thus unchanged, and so should theoretically be covered under Korematsu & Hirabayashi. This is because they haven't been explicitly overruled, and the changes to the constitution since Hirabayashi aren't relevant: Amendments XXII and XXV have to do with procedural issues with the office of the President, amendments XXIII, XIV, and XXVI are related to voting rights, and XXVII addresses Congressional salaries. However, in Korematsu, he evidently felt that the exclusion was without basis and dissented, calling the majority opinion "legalization of racism." Current Law In Hirabayashi, he sternly warned of the racism involved, but felt that the curfew was indeed justified. In these cases, Justice Frank Murphy's opinions stand out. A day before this decision was announced, the government suspended Executive Order 9066, leaving the question unresolved. Another case, a habeas corpus case, Ex parte Endo might have resolved it, but the Court concluded this case in favor of Endo without going to the constitutional level. The question of internment of people with Japanese ancestry was not actually decided constitutionally. In their decision, they heavily relied upon the Hirabayashi case. United States, that the exclusion of those with Japanese ancestry from certain military zones (in this case, the West coast) was also constitutional. In the end, the court decided that a curfew was indeed justified.įollowing this, the majority of the court found in Korematsu v. ![]() The main constitutional issue ended up being the effectiveness of the Fifth Amendment in providing for due process of law in times of war. United States case, the court had to determine whether imposing a curfew on those of Japanese descent was valid. In the lesser-known Kiyoshi Hirabayashi v. ![]() If not, specifically why not, citing what's changed about the US constitution between WWII and now to prevent that?Īnswers that just say "no political leader would try that because it'd be so unpopular" are not satisfactory answers to the question and not consistent with the evidence of what happened before and what is happening in present polls.ĭuring WWII, the Supreme Court dealt with three main issues in their cases on Executive Order 9066: curfews, exclusions, and internment of persons with Japanese ancestry. Supposing such a candidate were elected President, could that President do something like Executive Order 9066 again today? Muslims) because of concerns that a small minority of them might be radical enough to kill a bunch of people, and remain surprisingly popular. Today, in the "War on Terror," at least one politician can make surprisingly strong statements about plans for negative treatment against large groups of people (e.g. ![]() United States ruled this was constitutional. In World War II, Executive Order 9066 suspended basic rights of Japanese Americans - even people whose loyalty to the United States was never questioned, though the government feared the group as a whole might contain some spies - and led to a lot of people (>100K) being rounded up and kept at internment camps.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |