Essay Korematsu v. United States

Fighting a war against the oppression and persecution of a people, how hypocritical of the American government to harass and punish those based on their heritage. Magnifying the already existing dilemma of discrimination, the bombing of Pearl Harbor introduced Japanese-Americans to the harsh and unjust treatment they were forced to confront for a lifetime to come. Wakatsuki Ko, after thirty-five years of residence in the United States, was still prevented by law from becoming an American citizen.

Mindful of the hardships during war times for all Americans, the Court implies that it is the responsibility of citizens to bear this burden, “We uphold the exclusion order …Not unmindful of the hardships…But hardships are part of war,…the burden is always heavier.” (Korematsu, 357). The hardship of one race seemed to outweigh that of another, no mention is made about the fact that the only race ordered to evacuate by reporting to Assembly Centers followed by indeterminate confinement to detention camps were Japanese Americans. The Supreme Court outlines that this case is about an exclusion order and not racial prejudice, “Our task is simply, our duty clear…we are specifically dealing with nothing but an exclusion order. To cast this case into the outlines or racial prejudice…merely confuses the issue.” (Korematsu, 358) Korematsu was a loyal citizen of the U.S., his loyalty was never attested; nevertheless, he faced charges against him because he refused to obey an order which singled him out because of his ancestry. “Guilt is personal and not inheritable” (Korematsu, 364). The military acted to protect the nation against espionage and sabotage, they were acting in the interest of the nation and at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack time was limited, the loyal could not be segregated from the disloyal. During wartimes however the US Government needs to be mindful that this is a country made of vast cultures, races, religions and the US Constitution

An example of racial profiling that involves both Stop-and-Frisk and DWB is the incident behind Whren v. United States. The incident behind the case involved two black men, Michael Whren and James Lester Brown, in Washington D.C. who were driving a truck through a high drug area. An unmarked police car with two officers pulled up next to the truck that was stopped at a stop sign for an unreasonable amount of time and then sped away at a high speed. The police officers then pulled them over and saw a clear plastic bag. Under the suspicion that it was drugs, they searched the car and ended up finding a substantial amount of drugs. The decision of Whren v. United States says that if a police officer has a reasonable suspicion, he can stop the car for that reason alone. There is no need for a traffic offense because ‘driving suspiciously’ is enough to warrant a stop. While yes, they did see the plastic bag and that was the caused for the search, they stopped them because they were African American men in a high drug area and drove suspiciously. There is no saying that if they were two white men that they would not have been pulled over as well, however, if they were two black men not in a high drug area and drove suspiciously they would have still been more likely to be pulled over than two white men. This shows the underlying problem is not that the law directly discriminates, it’s that the police who enforce and the society who follows it that have biases and stereotypes that

One man, Fred Korematsu, had fought against the internment camps and tried to earn Japanese- Americans rights and

Korematsu argued that the racial exclusion was unconstitutional and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States argued that Congress and the President had the power to order and legislate this exclusion based on Article 1 Section 8 and Article 2 Section 2.

The decision to imprison Japanese Americans was a popular one in 1942. It was supported not only by the government, but it was also called for by the press and the people. In the wake of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941, Japan was the enemy. Many Americans believed that people of Japanese Ancestry were potential spies and saboteurs, intent on helping their mother country to win World War II. “The Japanese race is an enemy race,” General John DeWitt, head of the Western Defense Command wrote in February 1942. “And while many second and third generation Japanese born in the United States soil, possessed of United States citizenship, have become ‘Americanized,’ the racial strains are

Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire . . . The military urgency of the situation required that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily. Congress put their confidence in our military leaders and decided that they should have the power to carry out the necessary measures. There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some so the military authorities felt that the need for action was great. The fact that we can look back and see things more calmly does not allow us to say that at the time these actions were unjustified.21

To be a Japanese immigrant in the early 1900s was difficult but after December 7, 1941 things only got worse. On December 7, 1941, the Japanese Imperial Navy attacked the United States naval base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. “Although conflict had been underway in both Europe and Asia for years, the United States did not formally enter the hostilities until December 8, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously declared the attack on Pearl Harbor ‘a day which we live in infamy’ and asked Congress for a declaration of war” (Wu and Izumi). After the attack on Pearl Harbor “race became increasingly associated with loyalty in the United States” (Harth 254). “What Japan had done was blamed on Japanese Americans” (Wu 2). On February 19, 1942 President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. Executive Order 9066 granted the secretary of war and his commanders the power “to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded” (Executive Order 9066). “Although the text of Executive Order 9066 did not specifically mention Japanese Americans, it was intended to apply to them exclusively” (G. Robinson and G. Robinson 4).

The majority opinion in the ruling of Korematsu v. United States. The majority opinion in this case was in favor of the United States. The court in this case argued that the executive order 9066 (….WHEREAS the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities….(illinois.edu) was legal because after the bombing of pearl harbor, the general population of the United States was in a state of chaos.

Rehnquist, as its stated in document 4, the public officials called for Japanese relocation because there was an attack in Pearl Harbor, by people of the Japanese Race. Many American Citizens were paranoid that anyone of the Japanese Race was going to commit an act of terrorism, however the Japanese living in America didn’t do anything wrong. The number one reason Japanese Americans were relocated was so that the Japanese would not commit sabotage, as stated by President Roosevelt in document 5a. The Espionage Act was put in place to protect the act of treason. According to Stanley Kutler, one motive to intern Japanese Americans because the government thought they would gain popularity and power. The government knew people who were Japanese and living in America posed no threat to the citizens of the United States of America. The government just did all of the relocation ,Espionage act for show, and to make the American citizens feel safer. Mr. Justice Jackson stated in document 6 that Korematsu is a citizen of the United States and of California. Korematsu was born in the United States of America, he has never done anything seriously wrong, or against the United States of America. The only “crime” he commited is his parents being born in Japan and him being born in America. He did not commit any sort of crime or any sort of act of treason, he did absolutely nothing

In the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Korematsu v. United States, six votes sided with the government and three votes sided with Korematsu. Korematsu decided to not move from San Leandro, California to a concentration camp, and he was declared that he violated the Civilian Executive Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army.2 The civilian Executive Order No. 34 was the order that commanded all Japanese-Americans to relocate to internment camps. Korematsu rebutted that the order violated his 5th

Also commonly referred to as The Steel Seizure Case, it was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the US Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. The Majority decision was that the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

On December 7 1941, The Japanese attacked a naval base on Pearl Harbor. The destroyed about twenty naval ships and nearly 2,400 Americans died. (History.com staff, 2009). It was a Japanese Victory. This surprise attack led the United States to enter the war. (Historyonthenet staff 2000).Americans viewed Japanese as threats.

United States for Fred Korematsu who was internment into the Japanese-American internment had his conviction overturned as a result of information showing the government had withheld vital evidence from the both the Supreme Court and Mr. Korematsu’s defense team. Not only it held that the order leading to the detention of Japanese Americans during World War II was not unconstitutional. The opinion, written by Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black, held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Fred Korematsu's individual rights, and the rights of Americans of Japanese

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at