1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Rashid [163]
3 years ago
15

Which piece of evidence best supports the argument that Japanese American internment was not justified?

History
2 answers:
Sergio [31]3 years ago
6 0

D would be the best answer for the question.

KatRina [158]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:

The piece of evidence that supports the best the argument that Japanese American internment was not justified is that D. The U.S. government later apologized to Japanese Americans for the internment.

Explanation:

A. Option is wrong because it was not about Japanese immigrants and the attainment of U.S. citizenship. It was about the origin and the current president's order to incarcerate them for it and the risk he associated with it.

B. Option could be right, but considering they could have been connected to the attack of pearl harbor it's not enough. So, considering that only because they lived on the west coast they weren't connected to the attack, it's wrong.

C. Option doesn't explain why the internment would be unjustified.

D. Option Mentions that after some time, the U.S. government apologized for the internment. Shows that it was not justified. The research carried on, showed that everything was based on false beliefs of fear.

You might be interested in
Who was allowed to participate in Athenian democracy?
scoray [572]
Everyone who lived in Athens.
6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What does it mean to preserve protect and defend the constitution
Katen [24]

Answer:

What is the time relationship between a President’s assumption of office and his taking the oath? Apparently, the former comes first, this answer appearing to be the assumption of the language of the clause. The Second Congress assumed that President Washington took office on March 4, 1789,1 although he did not take the oath until the following April 30.

That the oath the President is required to take might be considered to add anything to the powers of the President, because of his obligation to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, might appear to be rather a fanciful idea. But in President Jackson’s message announcing his veto of the act renewing the Bank of the United States there is language which suggests that the President has the right to refuse to enforce both statutes and judicial decisions based on his own independent decision that they were unwarranted by the Constitution.2 The idea next turned up in a message by President Lincoln justifying his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus without obtaining congressional authorization.3 And counsel to President Johnson during his impeachment trial adverted to the theory, but only in passing.4 Beyond these isolated instances, it does not appear to be seriously contended that the oath adds anything to the President’s powers.

Topics

Elections and Voting Rights

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
What we're to specific reasons that the colonist gave for leaving king George III
Eduardwww [97]

King George The Third was a mad man, the colonist left with anger for taxing them without letting them have representation in government. The colonists saw the taxes unfair. The colonists also were mad because thing did not read their complaints and not even answer them. Also that if a troop came to a colonists door then the residents would have to take care of that troop. Women were also treated very wrong.

6 0
3 years ago
What were the German soldiers called who lead the attack on Seicheprey?
tamaranim1 [39]

Answer:

Marines

Explanation:

i took the test or whatever

8 0
3 years ago
How do Sections 14 and 32 repeal the Missouri Compromise of 1820?
stepladder [879]

Answer:

The provisions of the Missouri Compromise forbidding slavery in the former Louisiana Territory were repealed by it.

Explanation:

Sections 14 and 32 repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 by legislating about slavery into any territory or state. It left the people of Nebraska and Kansas free to decide about it.

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Why is mesopotamia known as the fertile crescent
    13·1 answer
  • What did east pakistan change its name to in 1971??
    11·2 answers
  • How did the United States acquire Florida from Spain?
    7·2 answers
  • Why did southerners finally accept rutherford<br> b. hayes?
    6·1 answer
  • HELP FAST Which list accurately describes the order of the development of our calendar?
    14·2 answers
  • What explains the attractiveness of the fascist and Nazi movement?​
    12·1 answer
  • 8. Which of the following individuals would probably be considered a hawk?
    8·2 answers
  • Answer the question i posted earlier pls i need help
    14·1 answer
  • Which case helped women’s rights??
    5·2 answers
  • Why did conservatism grow?
    9·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!