Korematsu v United States - the U.S. Supreme Court Case legalizing Japanese Internment
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 июл 2024
- This lecture video is about a landmark 1944 US Supreme Court case upholding the exclusion of Japanese Americans, Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214. First, I discuss the majority opinion, authored by Justice Black, which focuses mainly on whether the court should apply strict scrutiny when assess-sing Exclusion Order #34. Then there are in-depth readings of passages from two of the dissenting opinions, authored by Justices Roberts and Murphy. Roberts focuses on the fact that there was another relevant order, Proclamation 4, which combined with Exclusion Order #34 to make it such that Japanese Americans were forced into concentration camps solely because of their race or ancestry. Murphy simply focuses on how racial orders are unreasonable. This lecture is part of a broader Philosophy of Law course, in which we read several chapters of HLA Hart's The Concept of Law.
Great Lecture. Very informative.
excellent playlist!
Impressive explanation of the two dissenting opinions in this landmark US Supreme Court case.
It would be interesting to read the summary of the majority opinions in this case.
This is what I found on a short search:
Concurring Opinion Written by: Justice Frankfurter
Concurrence: The constitutional issues should be addressed, but in evaluating them, it is clear that the “martial necessity arising from the danger of espionage and sabotage” warranted the military’s evacuation order. Conviction affirmed
So Frankfurter (ironically of German descent) buys into the idea that if you are racially Japanese you can't be trusted not to be a traitorous danger, let alone to be a faithful American citizen. Men, women, and children.
I don't understand exactly how much "Martial Law" factored into this era. Was the Military given special powers in this regard?
@@pcatfulMy (non-lawyerly) understanding is that it hinged almost entirely on special powers that applied in wartime, and presumably could not be applied during peace.
This of course gets really weird in the modern era, when America is perpetually at war with unnamed combatants…
@@simperingham Thanks. Yes, I believe that was the outcome with the book "1984". They created an endless war with permanent special powers for the government.
Thank you
Interesting, provocative lecture. However, I suggest avoiding the term "internment" and using the term "imprisonment" or "detainment", because the term "internment" refers specifically to prisoners of war. Just call the action like it is and not by any euphemism. Moreover, Jackson's dissent matters in the 6-3 decision, especially in light of Roberts' seemingly cavalier remark about the court of history's precedent on the Korematsu case in the recent Trump v Hawaii decision. Nevertheless, great job!
"Internment" is the correct term in this case. Not only was it the term used at the time but as justice Murphey pointed out the military leaders thought of Japanese Americans as an enemy race. They were for all intents prisoners of war. The fact they were prisoners of war for a war they had nothing to do with is part of the reason the whole thing was so F'd up.
When you say the lecture is provocative do you mean the content of the materials presented provoke discussion, or do you mean the presentation is itself of a provocative manner or style?
No mention of Robert Jackson's dissent? Shocking!
We are missing the point of national protection
I think it’s just common sense that Americans regardless of race are still Americans. If they sent Japanese to camps then German and Italian Americans should have also been sent to camps.
GrumpyCat-mw5xl: Not to mention French [Vichy], Romanian [Iron Cross], Norwegians [Quisling], and British Americans [Oswald Mosley] . I'm heartened that today, the Korematsu case would have been decided exactly as it should have been then: as an unconstitutional violation of civil rights of an American citizen, based on race and nothing more.
Emperor _of the Japanese_ title, divinity status thereof depending on religious confession, and the serial political unreliability of naturalized Japanese that gave _aid and comfort_ to a downed IJN pilot in Hawaii during the *Niʻihau incident* are required for full context. Same dual loyalty question came up again with JFK's presidency as the first Catholic elected, and only Imperial Japanese lack of unconventional warfare planning prevented the kind of saboteur mayhem anticipated by the order (e.g. CCP/PLA Covid release with 2020 Lunar New Year outbound flights from mainland China).