LAW- KOREMATSU CASE custom essay

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.

Check your essay before you submit. See exactly what your professor sees.

See your AI and plagiarism results before your instructor does.Get the exact same report your professor uses. Trusted by 50,000+ students worldwide.

Get Plagiarism Report Humanize My Essay

Reply in this format: Hi Charyce, Great post! Then go on to say what you agree with about it in their answers and give substantial background.

Also I have uploaded documents that you can review the case from and the book that the uploaded documents come from is National Security Law, by Dycus, Berney, Banks &Raven-Hansen (Aspen Casebooks 5th ed).

POST 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 . . .