subject
History, 05.05.2021 17:40 jessicawolfking

Please helpp. Korematsu v. United States (1944)

In Korematsu v. the United States, you read about Japanese Americans being singled out and detained,
without trial, specifically because of their race/ethnicity. In your opinion, are there any circumstances
under which you see such actions as being acceptable? Is national security more important than
constitutional rights? Explain your answers.

ansver
Answers: 2

Another question on History

question
History, 21.06.2019 14:30
Summarize the effects of the marshall plan on the us and western european countries
Answers: 1
question
History, 21.06.2019 19:30
In the decision for dred scott vs.sanford, (1857) in which a slave petitioned for his freedom in a st. louis court, on the grounds that his owner had taken him into free territory, and thus he ought no longer be regarded as possessing "slave" status, but should be regarded as a free man, the court decided as follows (excerpt): "in the circuit courts of the united states, the record must show that the case is one in which by the constitution and laws of the united states, the court had jurisdiction--and if this does not appear, and the court gives judgment either for plaintiff or defendant, it is error, and the judgment must be reversed by this court--and the parties cannot by consent waive the objection to the jurisdiction of the circuit court. a free negro of the african race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a 'citizen' within the meaning of the constitution of the united states. when the constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the states as members of the community which constituted the state, and were not numbered among its 'people or citizen.' consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. and not being "citizens" within the meaning of the constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the united states, and the circuit court has not jurisdiction in such a suit. the only two clauses in the constitution which point to this race, treat them as persons whom it was morally lawful to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves. since the adoption of the constitution of the united states, no state can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of the united states, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument." why does the court say that the petitioning party in this case had no right to sue for his freedom? a) because he is too young b) because he is from a different state c) because he is "of the african race" with enslaved ancestors d) because he is, properly speaking, within his owner's jurisdiction
Answers: 1
question
History, 21.06.2019 22:30
Profits are maximized when marginal revenue and marginal costs are a. set c. equal b. less than market price d. greater than market price
Answers: 2
question
History, 22.06.2019 05:40
Which of these constitutional amendments made all people born or naturalized in the united states into citizens of the united states ?
Answers: 1
You know the right answer?
Please helpp. Korematsu v. United States (1944)

In Korematsu v. the United States, yo...
Questions
question
Mathematics, 18.02.2021 05:20
question
Mathematics, 18.02.2021 05:20
question
Biology, 18.02.2021 05:20
question
Medicine, 18.02.2021 05:20
question
Social Studies, 18.02.2021 05:20
question
Mathematics, 18.02.2021 05:20
Questions on the website: 13722363