Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)
The fifth amendment of the United States Constitution states: No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law… By placing Japanese and Japanese Americans to internment camps in groups, the United States has denied them due process of law. In order for proper due to be achieved, individuals must be proven guilty as an individual, through established procedures. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution states: No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The government is obliged to provide equal rights to all citizens and if the rights of a particular racial group are taken away the reason for doing so must past the highest scrutiny possible. Italian Americans and German Americans were treated far differently from the Japanese during World War ll. Some did go through the suffering and discrimination that the Japanese did, but they were were not gathered up in masses without a hearing or any proper evidence as the Japanese were.
After Pearl Harbor, approximately 5,000 American citizens of Japanese ancestry refused to swear unqualified allegiance to the United States and to renounce allegiance to the Japanese Emperor. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President the power as commander in chief of the military. That includes issuing orders necessary to protecting the Nation. Executive order 9066 falls under this section of the Constitution.
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and required any warrant to be supported by probable cause. This prevents searches from being performed without consent from someone with higher power. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution requires that all felonies no matter the size, be tried only upon indictment by a grand jury. The Amendment also provides several trial protections including the right against self-incrimination as well as the right to be only tried once. The Sixth Amendment states that the accused is to be tried in a manner that is speedy and a public trial, by an impartial jury of the district where the crimFred Korematsu was born in Oakland, California in 1919, to Japanese parents who immigrated to the United States in 1909. Growing up he was exposed to racism, a part of his life that would never quite leave. At the age of 21 Korematsu enrolled in the military but was denied because of his deficiency; a stomach ulcer. This however did not defeat Korematsu, he still wanted to serve his country so he enrolled in welding school in order to better contribute to the defense effort. Due to complications with his race and job he moved around from job to job until he lost employment completely after the attacks on Pearl Harbor.
In 1942, when General John DeWitt, prohibited Japanese Americans from leaving military area No.1, Korematsu underwent plastic surgery on his eyelids with the hope of passing as a caucasian and even changed his name. This proved to be unsuccessful. On May 3, 1942, when General DeWitt ordered all Japanese Americans to report on May 9th to assembly centers to be later removed to camp, Korematsu refused and went into hiding. He was later arrested and after being recognized as a “Jap” wa held at a jail in San Francisco.
Shortly after Korematsu’s arrest, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Ernest Besig, asked Korematsu if he would be willing to use his case to test the legality of the Japanese American Internment. Korematsu was then assigned Wayne M. Collins as his civil rights attorney. Korematsu was then jailed and tried in federal court on September 8, 1942 for a violation of Public LAw no. 503, which criminalized the violations of military orders issued under the authority of Executive Order 9066. Korematsu was placed under five years of probation and was placed in the Central Utah War Relocation Center with his family. 6 months later Korematsu appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, They granted review but upheld the original verdict on January 7, 1944. He appealed again and brought his case to the United States Supreme Court.
e was committed. The Seventh Amendment codifies the right to a jury trial and also inhibits courts from overturning a jury’s findings of fact. The Eighth Amendment prohibits the court from imposing excessive bail, fines or cruel and unusual punishment, including torture. The Fourteenth Amendment states that a law must be applied equally to everyone, no matter the race, color, ethnicity, gender, or religious practice.
Executive Order 9066, authorizes the Secretary of War to prescribe certain areas as military zones. Exclusion Order NO. 34 command Japanese Americans to leave their homes, and to meet of for departure to internment camps. No reason is given, but the order is enforced to the fullest extent. The Espionage Act of 1917 was created on June 15, 1917 with the intention to prohibit any sort of interference with military operations or military recruitment and to prevent the support of U.S enemies during wartime. The Sedition Act of 1918 was an Act that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 to cover a broader range of offenses, including speech and expressions that would cast a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds.
The Alien Registration Act of 1940 required immigrants to register with the United States and to state their personal occupation status and a record political belief. This was required in order to keep track of immigrants for ‘National Security”. The Alien Enemies Act, which came to play on June 25, 1978, authorized the the president to expel, without a hearing, any alien that was deemed “dangerous to the peace and safety” of the United States or suspected of “treasonable of secret” inclinations.
Habeas Corpus is a writ(court order) that requires all persons under arrest to be brought before a judge or court. Habeas Corpus was set in place to ensure that a prisoner can be release from unlawful detention or detention that is lacking of significant cause or evidence. Habeas Corpus was put in place to safeguard the individual freedom or individuals against arbitrary state action. Strict Scrutiny is one level analysis that the government would use to determine the constitutionality of the actions that the government made as a whole. They also determine whether an act on every level of the government is valid.
Schenck vs U.S. was a Supreme Court case that took place in 1919. The case was based off of the determination as to whether a state constitutionally limit an individual’s free speech right under the First Amendment. The case was brought up when Schenck distributed provocative fliers to draftees of World War I. The court made the decision that in certain context, words can create a “create and present danger” that Congress can indeed prohibit. The case was eventually overturned. Hirabayashi vs U.S. was a case in the Supreme Court in which the curfews of minority groups were questioned after the Pearl Harbor attacks in Hawaii raised concern. More specifically, Gordon Hirabayashi and Yasui, both University of Washington students, who were accused of violating the curfew order. Hirabayashi and Yasui were convicted of violating a curfew and relocation order and eventually the appeal of their conviction reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The court upheld he curfew order and Hirabayashi and Yasui were sent to an internment camp. Both cases go without saying, that they were violating a questionable rule/law created for the “protection” of U.S. citizens, as with the Korematsu vs U.S. case. I do not think that the prior ruling will greatly affect the case as hand because they are completely unaffiliated, but I do realize that prior rulings dealing with similar instances will be treated in a similar matter.
I feel very unsure about this case so far. I read the fact that I am unsure as to whether he will be charged guilty or innocent. I find it extremely awful what United States government did to the people of Japanese ancestry and I think that is important to realize that we did make a mistake. However when laws are made they should be enforced and you should not break them. Even though Fred Korematsu was doing something that he thought was right he was still breaking the law and he needs to be tried as is. Yes what we did was wrong but you should still not violate a law. I do think Korematsu violated the civilian exclusion order because he specifically did something he was told not to do. However I think that Executive Order 9066 was unconstitutional because it placed a minority group in an extreme disadvantage and it is arguably unjustifiable. To corner off a minority group into zones and then place them into camps is something we saw during the Holocaust. It was not at the same level as the Holocaust but we still must remember that what we did was wrong and we cannot go back on it.
During World War II, the Presidential Executive Order 9066 and the congressional statutes gave the military authority to exclude citizens of Japanese ancestry from areas determined to be critical to national defense and potentially vulnerable spots to espionage. Korematsu remained in San Leandro, California, violating Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army. On September 8, 1942, for a violation of Executive Order 9066, he was placed on five years probation. Korematsu then appealed again to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and we agreed to review his case today, October 8th, 1944. We have established he IS guilty so what we are deciding is whether the executive order and subsequent civilian exclusion orders are constitutional.
"Fred Korematsu." Wikipedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Korematsu>.
"Japanese American internment." Wikipedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment>.
"Exclusion Order NO. 34." Historical Society of Pennsylvania. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2014. <http://hsp.org/education/primary-sources/civilian-exclusion-order-no-34>
"Executive Order 9066." Wikipedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066>.
"Schenck v. United States." Wikipedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States>.
"Hirabayashi v. United States." Wkikpedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirabayashi_v._United_States>.
"Habeas Corpus." Wikipedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus>.
"Alien Registration Act." Spartacus Educational. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2014. <http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAalien.htm>.
"List of amendments to the United States Constitution." Wikipedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution>.
Court Ruling
During World War II, the Presidential Executive Order 9066 and the congressional statutes gave the military authority to exclude citizens of Japanese ancestry from areas determined to be critical to national defense and potentially vulnerable spots to espionage. Korematsu remained in San Leandro, California, violating Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army. On September 8, 1942, for a violation of Executive Order 9066, he was placed on five years probation. Korematsu then appealed again to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and we agreed to review his case today, October 8th, 1944. We have established he IS guilty so what we are deciding is whether the executive order and subsequent civilian exclusion orders are constitutional.
During World War II, the Presidential Executive Order 9066 and the congressional statutes gave the military authority to exclude citizens of Japanese ancestry from areas determined to be critical to national defense and potentially vulnerable spots to espionage. Korematsu remained in San Leandro, California, violating Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army. On September 8, 1942, for a violation of Executive Order 9066, he was placed on five years probation. Korematsu then appealed again to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and we agreed to review his case today, October 8th, 1944. We have established he IS guilty so what we are deciding is whether the executive order and subsequent civilian exclusion orders are constitutional.
Project Reflection
Prior to this project we read several document packs detailing what happened surrounding the internment of people of Japanese Ancestry. What I learned was shocking; the US government had already taken into custody the people of concern, yet over 100,000 Japanese people were still taken to internment camps. False information was told to the people of the US to get them to believe incorrect information. The final project was a summary of what we had learned during the annotation process.
I was assigned as a judge; the head judge. During the project we had to collaborate on different parts to make sure we were on the same page. For instance, when we were writing the case summary I was able to share one annotation with someone who was using the same source. The biggest challenge that occurred group work wise for me would have to be procrastination. I had this mindset that because I was in a group I had to do less work, which was not the case at all. I just had to sit down and persevere.
For the court ruling I had originally written it as if it was just a paper, not dialog. I had to revise my ruling to better fit with something that I would actually say during court. The second major revision I had to make was making sure all of my information on my court ruling was relevant to what needed to be said during court. Originally I had a lot of rambling that did not make sense and after my revisions I was confident with my ruling.
Overall I really enjoyed this project. I loved being the head judge and being able to make the rulings. To be honest I liked the power that it gave me and I felt really cool sitting up on my chair looking over my kingdom. I also thought the whole process was really interesting. I like seeing what people had to present on the subject and in the end I was satisfied.
My advice to the next head judge would be; rehearse your notes and lines that you would be saying during the trial, so you are better prepared. Also work with Ashley when she is writing the script because you are the one that is going to be saying it not her, so make sure it fits to what you are comfortable with saying.
Prior to this project we read several document packs detailing what happened surrounding the internment of people of Japanese Ancestry. What I learned was shocking; the US government had already taken into custody the people of concern, yet over 100,000 Japanese people were still taken to internment camps. False information was told to the people of the US to get them to believe incorrect information. The final project was a summary of what we had learned during the annotation process.
I was assigned as a judge; the head judge. During the project we had to collaborate on different parts to make sure we were on the same page. For instance, when we were writing the case summary I was able to share one annotation with someone who was using the same source. The biggest challenge that occurred group work wise for me would have to be procrastination. I had this mindset that because I was in a group I had to do less work, which was not the case at all. I just had to sit down and persevere.
For the court ruling I had originally written it as if it was just a paper, not dialog. I had to revise my ruling to better fit with something that I would actually say during court. The second major revision I had to make was making sure all of my information on my court ruling was relevant to what needed to be said during court. Originally I had a lot of rambling that did not make sense and after my revisions I was confident with my ruling.
Overall I really enjoyed this project. I loved being the head judge and being able to make the rulings. To be honest I liked the power that it gave me and I felt really cool sitting up on my chair looking over my kingdom. I also thought the whole process was really interesting. I like seeing what people had to present on the subject and in the end I was satisfied.
My advice to the next head judge would be; rehearse your notes and lines that you would be saying during the trial, so you are better prepared. Also work with Ashley when she is writing the script because you are the one that is going to be saying it not her, so make sure it fits to what you are comfortable with saying.