0
Did Executive Order 9066 infringe on the rights of Japanese living in the US as guaranteed by the Constitution?
Wiki User
∙ 7y ago
The order violated virtually all of the rights that as citizens of the United States are supposed to be guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Japanese-Americans were denied due process and the guarantee of â??life, liberty or propertyâ?? contained in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Executive Order 9066 called for taking Japanese-Americans from their homes and rehousing them to live in internment camps under curfew, with public property restrictions solely based on their ethnic background. The Supreme Court decided that the Constitution can be set aside on some occasions when practicality is needed, such as in times of war, and upheld the order.
With that said, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Franklin D. Roosevelt's executive order. It remains unclear how the Court might decide such an issue in the 21st century.
Wiki User
∙ 7y ago
Wiki User
∙ 7y agoUS President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 in 1942. The US Supreme Court ruled that the president and congress did not violate the US Constitution because during periods of war and other emergencies, national security issues that protected all US citizens were outweighed by governmental actions that effected minority rights.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
The original Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights it did protect the individual right to?
Yes. The original constitution starts with the assumption that *ALL* power is held by the people, and *NO* power is held by the government. It then sets up a structure for government, and grants specific powers to the government. Any power NOT granted to the government is held by the people, or by the states. The Bill of Rights was added as an additional guarantee so that people who believed that government would take more power than it was granted would vote to ratify the constitution. Rights are always held by people. A government can infringe on those rights, can restrict them, but cannot take them away. Therefore it is technically wrong to say that, for example, the 1st Amendment GRANTS a right. It does not. That right was always there. The 1st Amendment GUARANTEES a right. The same for all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights that specificall
Why is The Bill of Rights not in US Constitution?
The Bill of Rights were not in the original Constitution because the Constitution was ratified before these issues came up. The Bill of Rights were proposed to guarantee a number of personal freedoms.
What does the principle of Separation of Powers state?
it is to give equal rights to each of the 3 branches of governmentwhile that is the basic form, this is strait from a dictionary:1 : the constitutional allocation of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers among the three branches of government2 : the doctrine under which the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are not to infringe upon each other's constitutionally vested powersin other words:if one branch makes a law then the other branches have the power to either uphold that law or veto it. it basicly states that neither branch can gain and keep more power over the other branches.
What gives US citizens the right to own a gun?
Because they feel that they have the right to because it is written in the American constitution though most gun wielding Americans turn a blind eye to the fact that that section of the constitution was written just after Britain had left America so if Britain returned, America could mobilise an army extremely quickly as most citizens would have guns. Modern Americans don't have the threat of invasion looming over them so they have no reason to keep a gun. Many claim that having a gun is a form of protection but many shootings in America are either in the home between family members or the victim of the shooting is the owner of the gun.AnswerThe question implies that all (or most) Americans carry guns, which is not true. Depending on which source you reference, about 35% to 48% of Americans own at least one gun. According to a Gallup poll, 38% of Americans owned guns in 2005, and the number has held steady at approximately 40% since 2000. In fact, is has NEVER been true (not even at the time the U.S. was founded) that most Americans own guns. Even in colonial times, the majority of Americans did not own guns or even know how to shoot them.Moreover, having a gun is not the same as carryingone. While 40% of Americans may own guns, the majority of them don't carry them around with them everywhere they go. You need a special permit to carry your gun around with you. Most people are legally bound to leave their guns in their homes.So, the overwhelming majority of Americans do not carry guns. It's really pretty uncommon. It's the kind of thing you'd be surprised to learn about a person.And it is certainly not true that modern Americans have no reason to keep a gun. A lot of households in rural areas still hunt for their food. There are a lot of American families out there that would not eat if they did not own hunting rifles.What is often misunderstood about the 2nd Amendment is the intended use of guns. The 2nd Amendment was not solely intended to protect the U.S. from another British invasion (or any foreign invasion). It was also intended (perhaps even primarily intended) to protect American citizens from their own government.The 2nd Amendment says that, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." One of the definitions of "militia" (from dictionary.com) is, "abody of citizens organized ina paramilitary group andtypically regarding themselves asdefenders of individual rightsagainst the presumed interferenceof the federal government."The founding fathers wanted to make sure that, if their new government became corrupt, its citizens could fight and overthrow it, just as they had fought and overthrown British rule. At the time the U.S. was founded, the right to bear arms was considered of the utmost importance, not just to maintaining the country's independence, but to maintaining a just government.It is debatable whether "a well-regulated militia" is still "necessary to the security of a free state." Warfare has changed a lot since the American Revolution. Handguns, rifles, and even automatic and semi-automatic weapons would not stand a chance against the bombs and heavy artillery employed by modern armies. If Americans were to fight a war against their government nowadays, the government could easily just bomb the whole country.The question is: would they? Sure, the U.S. government could stop a modern-day revolution by bombing the whole country. But then there would be no country left. Bombing the entire country into ruins defeats the purpose of fighting for it. The government could bomb the land and win, but then they would have destroyed the entire country, leaving nothing of value left.One thing the U.S. has learned (or should have learned, rather) from its military history is to never underestimate the power of homegrown guerrilla warfare against an invading force. This is how the U.S. won the American Revolution, lost the Vietnam War, and ended up having way more trouble than it thought it would in the Iraq War.Of course, if Americans were to fight a modern-day revolution against their government, they would certainly be impeded by the fact that the U.S. army is not an invading force, but a force made up of fellow citizens. When planning and executing offensives in, say, Greenbrier County, West Virginia, the government could employ soldiers from Greenbrier County to help them. But the government would still have the disadvantage of attacking people on their home turf, in terrain that they know best. So it is certainly not a foregone conclusion that Americans don't need guns nowadays because guns would not help them overthrow a corrupt government.Furthermore (this really goes outside the scope of the question, but), banning guns doesn't necessarily make people safer. Criminals can get guns whether they are legal or not. So, outlawing guns often has the unintended effect of taking firearms away from law-abiding people, while leaving them in the hands of criminals.This is not to say that the United States does not have a problem with guns and gun control. But banning guns outright is not necessarily the solution. Many states do not have strict gun laws, and even when they do, gun dealers do not always follow them. Strict gun laws (and substantial civil and criminal penalties to ensure adherence to the laws) may be a more practical and effective solution than repealing the 2nd Amendment altogether.The founding fathers gave American citizens the right to bear arms because they believed it was essential to maintaining a just government. Rightly or wrongly, many Americans still believe this. History has shown that Americans can be downright paranoid about governmental intrusion upon their rights and liberties, and the belief that guns are essential to liberty is embedded into this innate mistrust of governmental authority.In today's times, there is also a definite "culture of fear" in the United States. The news media undoubtedly plays a major role in creating and maintaining this pervasive fear. Part of it is a quest for ratings: sensationalized stories about horrific crimes tend to grab people's attention. The other part of it is that the major news networks are often under the control of wealthy political figures who want to keep Americans in a permanent state of fear, because frightened people are easy to manipulate.As a result, a lot of Americans seem to have the idea that criminals are lurking in every shadow, waiting for the right moment to attack, rob and murder law-abiding citizens. While this fear may be justified in areas where crime is rampant, in most cases it is not. Yet the fear seems to persist regardless of local crime rates.
Why did the basic freedoms have to be in the constitution?
This is to insure that future rulers don't infringe upon them
Why should search warrants be issued by judges?
The judge reviews the warrant application and ensures that it complies with applicable law in order to ensure it does not infringe on constitutionally guaranteed rights. It is an example of one of the the "checks" that the Judicial Branch of government has on the Executive Branch (as represented by the police) of government.
The bill of rights was added to the constitution to meet the demands of?
Anti-federalists that believed the original constitution gave the government power to infringe upon the rights of man.
Which is not a right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights?
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (however these "rights" are limited so as to not infringe upon others rights. For example, your right of liberty, essentially freedom cannot infringe upon another persons right to live.)
Nine of the first ten amendments to the Constitution placed limits on the?
Limitations on the new government by forbidding it to infringe on certain fundamental rights.
Did nike copyright infringe?
a sentenve of infringe
Can you give a sentence with the word infringe?
These new rules infringe on my rights.
How do you use the word infringe in a sentence?
Yesterday, we learned what it meant to infringe a copyright.
A sentence for infringe?
My lawyer made sure noone can infringe upon my rights.
The word infringe in a sentence?
If my neighbor builds a new fence and it will infringe on my property.
Infringe used in a sentence?
The police officer began to infringe upon my rights when he arrested me without reading me them. The definition of infringe is to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.
What does it mean to infringe another persons trademark?
To infringe on a trademark means that you are using it in a way that is not allowed by the owner.
