ACL Chapter 4 pt 7

Chapter 4: Constitutional Underpinnings of the Presidency

Japanese American Internment During WWII

• Historical Context: Orders issued during World War II aimed at protecting national defense against espionage and sabotage.

  • Example: Curfew order in 1942 for people of Japanese ancestry in specified military areas, limiting their movement from 8 P.M. to 6 A.M.

  • Legal case: Hirabayashi v. United States (1943) upheld the legality of the curfew order.

• Legal Challenges: The 1942 Act faced attacks as an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional war powers and discrimination based on ancestry.

  • The curfew order was challenged as exceeding the war powers given to Congress and the President.

  • Conclusion: Military exclusion orders were justified under the circumstances because of national security threats.

• Key Findings from the Hirabayashi Case: The court maintained that exclusion could be justified given the potential threats during wartime and the military's judgment regarding the risks posed by Japanese Americans despite acknowledging hardships imposed.

The Korematsu Case

• Case Background: Korematsu v. United States challenged internment during World War II, questioning the government's rationale based on military necessity.

  • Korematsu argued that by May 1942, no evidence supported the threat of invasion.

• Military Authority's Findings: The Court supported the military's judgment, asserting that military authorities acted in accordance with Congressional authority to safeguard state security.

  • The ruling noted that while many Japanese Americans were loyal, the risk of not excluding potentially disloyal individuals justifiably colored the decision to intern all.

Dissenting Opinions in Korematsu

• Justice Murphy's Dissent: Argued against imprisonment based solely on race and highlighted the absence of individual investigations into loyalty.

  • Emphasized the absence of direct evidence of disloyalty from the majority of Japanese Americans.

• Justice Jackson's Dissent: Argued for the principle of individual guilt over hereditary guilt, criticizing the flawed assumption that loyalty could be inherited based on race.

  • Warned that this precedent could lead to justifications of racial discrimination in future military actions.

Current Legal Framework: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

• Background: In 2001, President Bush authorized military tribunals for terror suspects; Hamdan, a Yemeni national detained at Guantanamo, challenged this order.

  • Argued the military tribunal lacked authority and disregarded fundamental legal protections.

• Supreme Court's Findings: The Court ruled that the military commission did not comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or the Geneva Conventions.

  • It determined the lack of Congressional authorization for the commission's structure.

Implications for Presidential Power

• Constitutional Limits: The cases illustrate the balance of power between wartime needs and civil rights protections.

  • They highlight the judiciary's role in checking the executive's assertions of power during emergencies.

• Dissenting Opinions: Justices Scalia and Thomas emphasized respect for executive authority in military matters but were critical of the Court's interference with military operations.

Conclusion

• Historical Relevance: These cases underline the critical tension between national security and individual rights, especially in times of war, and provide a legal precedent for evaluating future actions by the executive branch.

  • The principle of racial discrimination and arbitrary detention based on ancestry remains a deeply contentious issue within the framework of American constitutional law.