English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

In hurry ...please...

2007-03-20 14:25:05 · 2 answers · asked by Carmen 0_o" 2 in Politics & Government Government

2 answers

Which Korematsu case you're referring to makes a difference. Assuming, for the moment, that you're referring to the more recent case, in which, in 1983, Judge Patel voided Fred Korematsu's conviction, the case was of limited precedential value and had limited impact, since it was based on the government's withholding of information during the first case, which ultimately resulted in a 6-3 Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction.

The initial case had huge impact. 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 Black, held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Fred Korematsu's individual rights, and the rights of Americans of Japanese descent.

It was a surprising conclusion given that Justice Black also wrote that any use of legal restriction based on race is "immediately suspect." However, the court found that such limitations are valid when dictated by public necessity, but they must withstand rigid judicial scrutiny in order to be upheld. The restrictions imposed upon Japanese Americans were deemed by the Court to be necessary for public security during time of war.
.

2007-03-21 00:06:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Sadly, almost no impact.

One of the most shameful moments in our history, and very few people seemed to care. Even fewer remember the decision.

Really, the only saving grace of the decision is that it set the first precedent for applying strict scrutiny to racial discrimination, which paved the way for that standard to be applied in many other 14th Amendment situations.

2007-03-20 14:28:21 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers