Constitutional Law

Under Article 1, section 9 of the constitution ‘the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.’ Habeas Corpus is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of themselves or another person. Although many people may state that the bombing of Pearl

In 1941, the Japanese surprise attacked Pearl Harbor and consequently, the United Stated entered World War II. Thus, in 1942, FDR issued Executive Order No. 9066 which allowed the Secretary of War to designate military areas. The executive order led to Public Law 503 in which Congress made it a criminal offense to violate military orders under Executive Order No. 9066, therefore, allowing the military to begin excluding anyone of Japanese ancestry in the military areas and forcing them to report to internment camps. Fred Korematsu, a Japanese American citizen, willingly refused to evacuate under Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 and was arrested and convicted. Korematsu appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court where Korematsu V United States was heard with Korematsu as the petitioner and the United States as the respondent.

Korematsu v. United States (1944) actually began December 7, 1941 with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The attack on Pearl Harbor then began the conquering of Wake, Guam, Philippines, Malaya, Singapore, Dutch East Indies, New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Burma. With the attack on Pearl Harbor, racism, which was hardly unfamiliar, became an even greater problem. The Japanese Government's attacks on Americans including; torturing, raping, and murdering was an excuse for Americans aversion towards the Japanese. Public officials began to lock up the Japanese people simply for their own good, for protection against the hate crimes.

One way his rights were violated was in the fact that he never had the presumption of innocence. John Lindh did not have the luxury of being presumed innocent until proven guilty. As shown in the article Lost in the Jihad which quotes Attorney General John Ashcroft professing his guilt at a press conference, in advance of Lindh’s indictment, relating Lindh as “an Al Qaeda-trained terrorist” (qtd. in Mayer, 1).

Hamdi et al. v. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al. could prove the undoing of the Bush administration’s legal defense of the abuses at Guantanamo Bay. In this case, four British citizens are suing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as well as a host of Army and Air Force Generals and policy apparatchiks for allegedly authorizing the use of torture in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. The four were captured in Afghanistan, either by Americans or America’s ally, the Northern Alliance, and transported to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba where they were held for over two years. Their status there was not as enemy combatant, which guaranteed them certain protections under the Geneva Convention, but rather as

In Padilla v. Rumsfeld, an American citizen was arrested in Chicago as he stepped off an airplane. Federal authorities received a tip that he was planning on conducting a terrorist attack using a dirty bomb. However, they did not have enough evidence to arrest him on the charge of terrorism and was subsequently held as a material witness. He was transferred to military custody and was sent to a prison in South Carolina. Over the next several years, his attorney's sued to the federal government alleging that he was being held without due process of law. In 2012, the Supreme Court denied to hear the case. They referred the matter back to US Court of Appeals. They dismissed the case, based upon the fact that the plaintiff's attorneys named Rumsfeld as the defendant. Instead, they should have named the military commander of the prison as the defendant. This means that the government can still hold onto Padilla and that his attorneys will have to re file using the proper procedures. ("Padilla v. Rumsfeld," 2012)

During the early 1940’s during the World War II era. The Supreme Court held the Korematsu v. United States, which became one of the biggest Supreme Court cases. The United States. Supreme Court held the conviction of Fred Korematsu, who was an American citizen born in Oakland, California but was also of Japanese descent from Japanese immigrants. Korematsu violated an exclusion order requiring him to submit a forced relocation during the World War II. After the bombing of the Pearl Harbor in the Pacific Ocean by Japan’s military against the United States and the United States entry to World War II. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued an executive order on February 19, 1942, the Executive Order 9066 gave authorization to the Secretary of War and the United States as military areas. The issue ,mainly applied to one-third of the land area of the United States and was used against those with “Foreign Enemy Ancestry” which mainly include Japanese, Italians, and Germans. The issue also gave the authority to hold certain people in internment camps, mainly the Japanese. This action by the United States were seen as a form of discrimination. The people who were held in internment camps were forced to leave their homes and were no longer able to work at their jobs, this became a huge impact on the economy as being not being able to work at your

Korematsu v. US was a supreme court case after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The US had internment camps throughout the country to house Japanese citizens so the government could check through all of their mail and try to see if there were any more terrorists

In 1942, during the early stages of the second World War, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt set in place Executive Order 9066 in response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The executive order allowed American citizens of Japanese descent to be banned from certain areas deemed critical for American national security and granted Japanese internment camps to be used during the war (Konkoly, “Korematsu v. United States”). Fred Korematsu was a Japanese American living in California at the time when the order went into action who was well aware that he would soon be removed from his home as it was in a critical part of the nation but was set on staying in his home. When the order did come for Korematsu to remove himself from his home, he refused and was convicted for disobeying the law. Fred Korematsu knew that if he resisted the law his chances of being arrested and brought to court were very high, but he believed that Executive Order 9066 violated his Fourteenth Amendment and he was willing to risk arrest to protest the violation of his civil

Rule: Since she is considered an enemy combatant the United States government does not believe she gets her 5th amendment rights of a fair trial in front of a jury of peers and her right to have an attorney. The government argues that the Executive Branch has the right, during wartime, to declare a person who fights against the United States an enemy combatant, thus restricting their access

United States (1944) mainly because of how each of the following content impacted the development of civil liberties and the “blowback” stigma generated for several decades. While the U.S. Supreme Court was initially meant to refrain from intervening in governmental policy, that soon ceased in the Constitutional Revolution of 1937 to today where we see the portrayal of SCOTUS as evaluating whether or not certain economic and social policies are acceptable within the U.S. Constitution, making a dramatic shift in its own limitations. With the Korematsu v. United States case, during which the Japanese forces bombarded Pearl Harbor and dragged the United States into World War II, many law-abiding Japanese-American citizens and foreigners living in the west coast were rounded up and thrown into detainment camps under strict supervision of the U.S. military, thereby stripping away their basic fundamental rights based upon their ancestry. What that basically meant, even with a 6-3 ruling, that during wartime, that given the dangerous circumstances, American citizens of Japanese descent at the time could be treated as a

The writ of habeas corpus provides individuals with protection against arbitrary and wrongful imprisonment. But it does not necessarily protect other rights, such as the entitlement to a fair trial. In our country anyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This seems to be the case unless you are accused of terrorism, then you are held outside of the US and are not subject to the same laws or privileges allowed within US jurisdiction.

The United States constitution talks about how anybody born in the United States is automatically an American citizen by law, no matter what their race is. Japanese-Americans had just as much citizen rights as anybody else. However, during the time of World War II, they were treated like foreigners, enemies of the state. On February 19, 1942, U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed and issued a document know as Executive Order 9066 that would be responsible for deporting the Japanese-Americans to internment camps. Korematsu v. United States was a landmark United States Supreme Court case, which requested the Japanese Americans into internment camps amid World War II paying little mind to Japanese-American citizenship. Korematsu v. United

The United States education system is comprised of laws and regulations that are formed through a hierarchical model. The founding fathers created the U.S. Constitution to be the superior document that holds the regulations other laws such as judicial, statutory, and administrative laws must comply with.

The detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility should be granted a fair trial, as Socrates, Spinoza, Dahl, and other liberal democrats of any time period would have argued. Although they are not citizens of the United States, the detainees are subject to the United States’ laws, and it is more than adequately precedented for transients, or non-citizens, subject to the laws of a given state to be either granted a trial in that state or allowed to leave that state voluntarily or forcibly, even if they are not granted other rights such as that of participating in government. Deportment seems like a reasonable alternative to trial, but indefinite detainment does not. A conservative or functionalist view is clearly inadequate to solve the problem of what to do with the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, because it is a question not only of political jurisdiction but also of basic human rights, which have been agreed upon internationally on multiple occasions, as has been previously cited. In addition, the Supreme Court agreed in the 2004 case Rasul v. Bush that any individual being held in a U.S. facility, regardless of their citizenship status, has the right to a fair trial. The United States values freedom so highly, and it should grant this basic right even to those