Reply to the following two classmate’s answers with a response of 200 words each The original question that the classmates answered was Post 2: Using Justice Jackson’s tripartite framework, argue (1) whether Korematsu was correctly decided from a legal/constitutional perspective and (2) whether you agree with the decision from a personal standpoint. Without in any way offering an opinion of my own, I encourage you to try your best to separate your legal analysis from your personal feelings. Include biblical arguments to support your answer. ———————————————————————— Reply in this format: 1: Charyce Rushing Post 2 Using Justice Jackson’s tripartite framework, argue (1) whether Korematsu was correctly decided from a legal/constitutional perspective and (2) whether you agree with the decision from a personal stand point. Without in any way offering an opinion of my own, I encourage you to try your best to separate your legal analysis from your personal feelings. Include Biblical arguments to support your answer. During World War II, President of the United States Franklin Roosevelt (President Roosevelt) issued an executive order authorizing military commanders to order all persons of Japanese descent whether or not they were United States citizens, to leave their homes on the West Coast and to report to “Assembly Centers,” which is a relocation center. The Petitioner, Korematsu (Petitioner), a United States citizen of Japanese descent, was convicted for failing to comply with military the order and remaining in San Leandro, California’s military area. Yes, this case was decided correctly. Legally, Korematsu, should have complied with the executive and military orders and not violated the Act of Congress, of March 21, 1942, 56 Stat. 173. Typically in the military, troops are expected to follow executive and military orders. Ordinarily orders are made for various reasons such as imminent danger, warfare conditions, shores are being threatened by hostile forces and other dangers. However, it is the executive branch of government and the military duty to protect troops from imminent and threats of danger including espionage and sabotage. (Dycus p. 812) Legally and Constitutionally: Justice Robert Jackson (J. Jackson) understood this case as not desiring to not distort the United States Constitution, or to approve what the military may deem expedient. Justice Robert Jackson stated that, “if the military commander had reasonable military grounds for promulgating the orders, they are constitutional and became law; the Court is required to enforce them.” I totally agree. (Dycus p. 816). On the other Justice Robert Jackson states, “there are several reasons why I cannot subscribe to this doctrine.” First, he states (paraphrased) that it “would be impractical and dangerous idealism . . . that probable operations will conform to test of constitutionality.” I disagree, I can subscribe to this doctrine because the military has “reasonable grounds to promulgate the orders. Roberts believes that the armed services must protect society and not the Constitution. I disagree. The armed services must protect both or there would be disorder. There would be point in obeying the laws of the land not the laws of the military laws, which seems contradictory. Additionally, there would be no need for armed services to set out to protect our national security and our Constitution, if the troops intended to pick and choose which, either the Constitution or our society they will obey. Would you really expect them to comply with the military laws if they operated under Justice Roberts’s framework? Personally: I agree with the decision of the court. Korematsu, he knowingly and admittedly violated an act of the federal government, an Executive Order from the President and should have to suffer the consequences thereof. Constitutionally: The Constitution, Article II, Section 2, allows for the President to handle military actions. Article II, Section 2, states “the President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective office . . . .” Therefore, Korematsu should be sentenced to the penalties that he deserves for violating the executive order of the President. Biblically: Trust not in a man, neither put confidence in a guide, but trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not on your on understanding, but in all thy ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct thy paths. Proverbs 3 POST 2: Katerina Grafakos COLLAPSE Justice Jackson made an amazing argument on the dissent of Korematsu. He stated that military orders should not be judged by a court, especially since the court cannot be given all the pertinent information necessary, seeing that especially at a time of war, the pertinent information necessary to give reason to military actions are classified. We do not know everything that goes on in war, which is why we have experts in the field making decisions for the immediate safety of our country. He states that it is possible that certain information may have led to the military order to evacuate those of Japanese descent from the West Coast. By taking this order to the Court and the Court declaring it constitutional or unconstitutionally, it sets a racist precedent for the future and expanding it into more issues that may come up. From a legal and constitutional perspective, I believe that the military order is unconstitutional and violates the 5th Amendment and I do not agree with the Court’s decision to uphold the order. However, I agree wholeheartedly with Justice Jackson’s dissent. John 15:13 states “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” There is definitely information we do not know (and won’t ever know) and we have to put trust in our military to carry out certain actions in order to keep us safe. Luke 6:31 states “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” It’s easy for us to say, yes, during a time of fear many actions are justified, but imagine it being you. Imagine the enemy being your cultural background and you get taken away from your home and placed in a camp because of it. “But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” (Luke 6:35-36) The last thing I’m saying is to not take any precautions, but removing someone from their home with no evidence of wrongdoing and forcing them to live in terrible conditions is a crime on its own.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]