Another one of the three worst decisions made by the Supreme Court was the decision in of Korematsu v. United States. Aspirationalism was also not used in this case and that shows the dangers of excluding it. Shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt commanded that all people of Japanese descent living on the west coast be subjected to a curfew. Japanese Americans were restricted by Executive Order No. 9066 and could not be out past 8pm nor before 6am. Following that, Roosevelt and Congress ordered that Japanese Americans be placed in detention camps because of the fear that they would become spies for Japan. Fred Korematsu, a Japanese American, was arrested for violating Executive Order No. 9066 by being out past curfew. …show more content…
Texas has an aspirationalist outcome and it liberated many people. Lawrence v. Texas is a case about sodomy and the Supreme Court had to rule whether the Texas statute making it illegal for homosexuals to engage in sodomy was Constitutional or not. The Court ruled that the Texas statute was unconstitutional because “liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex” (Carter & Burke, 2009, p. 126). Basically, the Constitution guarantees liberty for all and that same liberty protects privacy. Therefore, the Constitution protects privacy. The outcome of this case is aspirationalist because it values an individual rights, privacy, dignity, and equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. As Justice Brennan Jr. (1985) put it “dignity and rights of all persons were equal before all authority” (p. 1), which means that the Constitution guarantees those rights and other laws or authority cannot take it away. In this case, since heterosexuals have the right to do what they want in the privacy of their own home and not be brought to court or ridiculed for it, homosexuals should be able to do the same or the dignity and rights of all persons are not equal. This case had a huge impact because it overturned that case of Bowers v. Hardwick, which meant that states were no longer allowed to create sodomy …show more content…
Life is a guaranteed right in the Constitution yet many citizens do not get the chance to argue for theirs in court. Throughout the years, many people have been denied the right to due process which denies the right to life and liberty because without a fair trial, someone could go to jail and their life would end. Without a fair trial, someone could end up on death row and executed. Aspirationalism gives everyone a fair chance in court simply because humans should be treated like humans. Without aspirationalism, many judges would not read the Constitution to include privacy, right to property, or right to due process. Aspirationalism makes sure that judges take into account every aspect of individual rights and makes sure that judges define and clarify the ambiguous terms in the
After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Japanese Americans were regarded as a threat to the U.S. President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, also know as the Exclusion Order. This Order stated that any descendents or immigrants from enemy nations who might be a threat to U.S. security will report to assembly centers for Internment. There were no trials or hearings. They were forced to evacuate and many lost their homes and their businesses. Fred Korematsu refused to go. He was a U.S. citizen. Fred Korematsu was grabbed by police, handcuffed, and taken to jail. His crime -- defying President Franklin Roosevelt's order that American citizens of Japanese descent report to internment camps
Roosevelt would issue Executive Order 9066, giving the United States government power to imprison anyone considered a threat to the safety and America’s national security. Although Italian and German-Americans fell under this Executive Order, the largest population affected, would be Japanese-Americans. With quick enforcement, without trial or justification, Japanese-Americans would be singled out, simply because of their race. America’s hatred of the Japanese and anger over the attack in Pearl Harbor (Dec. 7, 1941), would demonize over 110,000 Japanese-Americans, to include men, women and
In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the court determined gay marriage to be a constitutional right, striking down several dozen state laws against SSM. While there has been some residual pushback against this decision, overall there has been broad complacence due to a high level of public support for the decision. Little scholarship has been done on how this decision has been implemented because the discussion was made so recently, but some measures show that “99.87 percent of the U.S. population [lives] in a county where same-sex marriage licenses are available” ("Local Government Responses to Obergefell v. Hodges." n.d.). While there are some pockets of resistance it is clear that there is broad local compliance with this decision, likely because of its broad popularity. Instances in which local bodies choose to disregard the Obergefell decision are highly publicized, and generally receive a great deal of public criticism. Thus, the SSM marriage example has fulfilled the two conditions for successful policy, as interest groups were able to use the courts to accomplish a set of aims, and local support has allowed for the implementation of the policy. While there has been some pushback along the way, this pushback has only served to further raise awareness of issue in the minds of the American people, and helped this cause gain
In 1943 a student Gordon Hirabayashi disobeyed a report for evacuation and curfew. Hirabayashi v. United States (1943), was the first judicial test of the statute that was signed into law by Franklin Roosevelt to make it a crime to remain in a military zone, that was put to use towards an American citizen. Hirabayashi was convicted of both counts, evacuation and curfew, in Fede...
Throughout American history, we have seen the United States become more progressive in their social issues, such as the abolishment of slavery, women’s suffrage, and the Civil Rights Movement. But as time has passed, we have encountered another group that is being discriminated against: homosexuals. Some states try their best to give equal rights to homosexuals so that they are respected as equally as everyone else. But in many states, such as Kansas and Arizona, private companies and businesses are given the right to turn down homosexual couples if it interferes with their religious beliefs. These two states also included places like hospitals where homosexuals can be denied from medical attention. These laws are very inhumane and are very hurtful to a large population of people today. But what if the people in states such as Kansas and Arizona think it is okay to have these laws instilled?
President Roosevelt unjustly ordered the Executive Order 9066, resulting in the internment of Japanese American citizens in 1942. This order authorized the evacuation of all people who were deemed threatening to the security of our country from the West Coast to relocate. People may say that he had valid reasons to believe that all of the Japanese American citizens needed to be gone in order to protect his people, but his only reason to think this was Pearl Harbor and the other false "facts" he had been told. This was considered unjust because there was no real evidence saying that the group was a threat.
As with all Supreme Court cases, the meaning of the Lawrence v. Texas will deepen when in the process of its interpretation as well when it is cited by the lower state courts and The Supreme Court itself. In any situation, the decision in the case contains the brave declaration of the dignity and freedom of choice of all homosexual individuals. It was celebrated by the homosexual activists fighting for the equal rights in the hope that the future legal advances may follow. Social conservatives have deplored the decision for the same reason. Nevertheless, the ruling of the Court was neutral, therefore it was fair.
December 7, 1941 was a military accomplishment for Japan. Japanese Bomber planes had flown over the island of Hawaii and bombed the American naval base Pearl Harbor. After the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, many Americans believed that the Japanese Americans, were disloyal and were sabotaging the United States Government. There were rumors that most Japanese Americans exchanged military information and had hidden connections with Japanese military. None of these claims were ever proven to be true but believed by many at the time. The United States Government became concerned about National Security and demanded action. On Thursday, February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt issued the Executive Order 9066, which called for an evacuation of Japanese Americans on the west coast with the excuse of a “military necessity.” The government’s enforcement of Executive Order 9066 in reaction to the public resulted in the creation of internment camps.
One reason we must have the second amendment is to protect the freedom for which our country fought so hard to win. The Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”[1] However, if these rights were ‘self-evident’, why did the founding fathers need to grant them to the states? We might as well ask why man is the way that he is, imperfect. We all wonder about this sad truth, but the fact remains that man is fallen. These rights are self-evident, obvious to human reason, but because humans are fallen, we are sometimes blinded to these apparent truths and we err in our rationality. King George was blind to these unalienable rights, as were Na...
Nevertheless, Japanese were resented and disliked by whites. Due to pressure from state leaders near the west coast, President Roosevelt, on February 19, 1942, signed Executive Order 9066. This resulted in the which resulted in the violent imprisonment of 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry. When the government gave its internment order, whites rounded up, imprisoned, and exiled their Japanese neighbors. In 1942, 110,000 Japanese Americans living on the West Coast of the United States were relocated to ten internment camps. More than two thirds of those sent to internment camps, under the Executive Order, had never shown disloyalty and were also citizens of the United States. In April 1942, the War Relocation Authority was created to control the assembly centers, relocation centers, and internment camps, and oversee the relocation of Japanese-Americans. It took another forty years for the US government to recognize the violations of this population's constitutional rights.
For some background, this case escalated to the Supreme Court since several groups of same-sex couples from different states, sued state agencies when their marriage was refused to be recognized. As it escalated through appeals, the plaintiffs argued that the states were violating the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection, according to the Constitution refers to the fact that, “any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (23). The opposition of this case was that, 1) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage as a policy, and 2) The sovereignty of states regarding the decision. Ultimately, and according to the Oyez project, the Court held that “[the Amendment] guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples,” and therefore, same-sex marriage is a fundamental liberty.
Even in a state where a majority agrees with the decisions, the rights of the minority must also be protected, otherwise the majority’s rights lose their meaning. Works Cited: Al-Arian, L. (2014, April 25). With new laws in Texas, self-induced abortion is likely to rise. Al Jazeera America. Retrieved April 25, 2014, from http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/fault-lines/articles/2014/4/25/with-new-laws-intexasselfinducedabortioncouldrise.html Dave, P. (2014, April 16).
American political culture emphasizes the values of liberty, equality, and democracy. Most of America’s debating is not over whether these issues are important, but how to best go about achieving these ideas. American’s define liberty as freedom, but America believes that liberty should be contained on some levels so they can create a stable society. The definition of freedom is that we can do whatever we want, as long as we do not affect another person’s freedom. American’s want to be able to do what they want, while not affecting someone else. So some rules are set to protect people and create a stable society.
With the issue of abortion, we are able to relate it easily to several principles throughout the Constitution. Every human has the right to make decisions about their own body, and this includes a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy. The Constitution doesn’t classify an unborn baby as a human. Which leads straight in to the 14th amendment, a right for personal privacy and not allowing the government and Constitution to be a pressuring standpoint in this decision on whether you want to keep your child. As a human, we have the rights that no state shall make or enforc...
Florida’s, Texas’s and Kentucky’s new proposed bathroom laws have “caused fear and dismay among transgender people around the country” (Tannehill). Kentucky laws are more focused on the school systems but Florida 's and Texas’s laws treat transgenders as if they were criminals. Both of these states have regulations that will give transgenders civil and or criminal charges for using the bathroom they identify with (Tannehill). A transgender could be charged a fine for using the wrong bathroom and “people who report a transgender people in the bathroom to claim civil damages, for example a bounty” (Tannehill). Florida and Texas are trying to look out for the best interest of the majority population, however, “we all have to use the bathroom, but these laws would seemingly force transgender people to choose between fines and jail, risking horrific violence or leaving the state” (Tannehill). These laws have been seen as unreasonable to the transgender community and have been fought by the ACLU lawyer Joshua Block, “We’re talking about people who also have their sense of privacy and modesty, and who are not going to want to have everyone see an anatomical part of themselves that they feel should never have been there in the first place,” (Marcus). It has also been found that it’s illegal for employers to carry out such rules, “The Equal Employment