Early in World War II, on February 19, 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, granting the U.S. military the power to ban tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry from areas deemed critical to domestic security. Promptly exercising the power so bestowed, the military then issued an order banning "all persons of Japanese ancestry, both alien and non-alien" from a designated coastal area stretching from Washington State to southern Arizona, and hastily set up internment camps to hold the Japanese Americans for the duration of the war. In defiance of the order, Fred Korematsu, an American-born citizen of Japanese descent, refused to leave his home in San Leandro, California. Duly convicted, he appealed, and in 1944 his case reached the Supreme Court.
<span>A 6-3 majority on the Court upheld Korematsu's conviction. Writing for the majority, </span>Justice Hugo Black<span> held that although "all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect" and subject to tests of "the most rigid scrutiny," not all such restrictions are inherently unconstitutional. "Pressing public necessity," he wrote, "may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can." </span>
In Korematsu's case, the Court accepted the U.S. military's argument that the loyalties of some Japanese Americans resided not with the United States but with their ancestral country, and that because separating "the disloyal from the loyal" was a logistical impossibility, the internment order had to apply to all Japanese Americans within the restricted area. Balancing the country's stake in the war and national security against the "suspect" curtailment of the rights of a particular racial group, the Court decided that the nation's security concerns outweighed the Constitution's promise of equal rights.
<span>Justice Robert Jackson issued a vociferous, yet nuanced, dissent. "Korematsu ... has been convicted of an act not commonly thought a crime," he wrote. "It consists merely of being present in the state whereof he is a citizen, near the place where he was born, and where all his life he has lived." The nation's wartime security concerns, he contended, were not adequate to strip Korematsu and the other internees of their constitutionally protected civil rights. </span>
In the second half of his dissent, however, Jackson admitted that ultimately, in times of war, the military would likely maintain the power to arrest citizens -- and that, possessing no executive power, there was little the judicial branch could do to stop it. Nonetheless, he resisted the Court's compliance in lending the weight of its institutional authority to justify the military's actions, and contended that the majority decision struck a "far more subtle blow to liberty" than did the order itself: "A military order, however unconstitutional, is not apt to last longer than the military emergency. ... But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all of time has validated the principle of racial discrimination. ... The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of urgent need."
Justice Owen Roberts also dissented in the case, arguing that a relocation center "was a euphemism for prison," and that faced with this consequence Korematsu "did nothing." Also dissenting, Justice Frank Murphy harshly criticized both the majority and the military order, writing that the internment of the Japanese was based upon "the disinformation, half-truths and insinuations that for years have been directed against Japanese Americans by people with racial and economic prejudices."
Answer:
I agree, Spice trading allowed empires to buy in bulk to have for thier empire and resell the spices to countries that were harder to accces. Spice trading became a deserible good that everyone wanted which led to countries to take over spice countries to continue making profit.
Explanation:
Alexander Hamilton was the leader of the Anti-Federalists because he believed in a limited federal government - incorrect. Hamilton was one of the Federalists, defended the Constitution and a strong federal government as well.
The Great Compromise combined the New Jersey plan and the Virginia plan in order to establish state representation. - Correct. The Great Compromise combined ideas from the Virginia Plan and New Jersey Plans and created a bicameral legislature with the creation of the Senate that represented states.
The 3/5th's compromise was created to resolve the issue over taxation. - Correct. The three-fifths- Compromise was created to solve the problem with slaves populations if they would count for legislative representation and tax purposes or not. The solution then was to count three out of every five slaves as a person for legislation and taxes purpose.
The Federalists papers were written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison to persuade states to ratify the Constitution. - Correct. The Federalist papers were a series of 85 essays that urged Anti-Federalists to ratify the constitution.
James Madison is referred to as the "Father of the Constitution" because of his contributions. - Correct. James Madison is called that because his drafts and his promotion of the Constitution, also he was the one who drafted the Bill Of Rights.
Anti-Federalists would only ratify the Constitution after a Bill of Rights was added to protect civil liberties. - Correct. The main problem that the Anti-Federalists had with the Constitution was the creation of a strong federal government that could seize civil rights, because of that they would only ratify the Constitution if it held a Bill of Rights to protect citizens.
Checks and Balances were added to the Constitution to make sure the government does not go into debt. - Incorrect. The Checks and Balances system was added to the Constitution to limit the government power by giving power and mechanisms to stop the government to the other powers - legislative branch and judiciary branch.
Answer: The answers A.
Explanation: Well all branches of the gov. have to do with laws.