Click on the Title of this Post, or paste the following link into your browser:
http://landmarkcases.org/korematsu/activity1_presidentialpowers_questions.html#questions
READ each of the cases, THEN...Answer the questions below:
QUESTIONS ABOUT PRESIDENTIAL POWER IN WARTIME
What does the U.S. Constitution say about the respective war powers of the president and Congress?
Does the power of the president as “commander in chief” give him unlimited power to act in time of war? Cite evidence from the three Supreme Court cases you read and heard about to support your answer.
How did the Supreme Court rule in the Korematsu case with regard to President Roosevelt’s use of presidential power in wartime?
Why do you think that the Supreme Court was willing to defer to the president in Korematsu, but not in the other three cases?
10 comments:
During warfare the U.S. constitution states that rights can be limited.According to landmarkcases.org the president doesn't have unlimited power to decide what to do during war.I think the president defered the Korematsu case and not the other three cases because the incident in pearl harbor took place right before, because of this any asian american was viewed as a thr3at.
Billy Poulos 902
The power of the President does not give him unlimited power during the war time, but he still has control. In the first situation it describes how the U.S would need more steel materials if overseas, but the owners wanted to go on strike. It asks if the president has the power to put the factories under governmental control. In the response it says that the presidential power during wartime does not extend to the power to seize private property. This means that he is not able to take over the factories because it is theirs, and they also have the right to strike, hence the First Amendment. The second situation had to deal with Milligan and habeas corpus. The supreme court agreed to hear the case and said that even though he can be imprisoned during military times of war, it is still unconstitutional to subject him to military court martial. So the president can suspend it, but he can't take the situation to such a harsh level. The third case showed how a man named Hamdi was arrested in 2001. The supreme court said that his fifth amendment rights were violated, because he wasn't given the challenge to say what he wanted to. In this case the president also does not have full power.
2- The Supreme Court ruled with the President to the korematsu case and they arrested him and sent him to jail, mainly because he came back to America as a latin- american and they caught him.
3- I think that the Supreme Court was willing to rule with the president on the korematsu case, but not on the other three, because they didn't seem as much as a threat to America. They thought that because korematsu was japanese he was a spy or could have been involved with japan. They judged him on his race which was wrong, because he wanted to be in the armed forces but they wouldn't let him in. They basically thought they were protecting the country.
Anastasia P
~sarah b
1. the u.s constitution says that the president and congress have more power during war time.
2.Being commander in cheif does not give the president unlimited amount of power. In some of the cases the supreme court sides with the people and not the president.
3.The supreme court ruling with the president in the Korematsu case shows the use of presdiential power during war time because during any other time the president would not be able to do that .
4.no i do not i jus think it was different opinions
The US constitution says congress has the power to declare war and the president is commander in chief of the US army. No, the power of the president as commander in chief doesn't give him unlimited power to act in time of war because the Supreme Court ruled against the gov't in these three cases. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the gov't, granting the president more power during wartime in the Korematsu vs. US case. I think the Supreme Court was willing to rule against Korematsu because if they ruled against the gov't, then the internment of Japanese-Americans would have had to end.
By:Mariela O(per.7)
1). The United States Constitution says that the respective war powers of the president and Congress are and are not limited. In some cases the president and congress have more power to do what they want during war time, but they cannot do whatever they want. There are a few limitations of how much power they can have during war.
2). The power of the president as “commander in chief” does not give him unlimited power to act in time of war. As stated in the cases the president has tried to expand his power on many occasion. However, the things he wanted to do were rejected by the supreme court and said to be unconstitutional and were not allowed to be carried out.
3). The Supreme Court ruled in the Korematsu case with regards to President Roosevelt’s use of presidential power in wartime in favor of the president. They let Korematsu's civil liberties be silenced and the presidents power to be expanded.
4). I think that the Supreme Court was willing to defer to the president in Korematsu, but not in the other three cases because in the other cases what happened was more general. However in Korematsu the attack on pearl harbor was a direct attack. It affected the U.S. more, and people were more scared/panicked/paranoid. They were doing whatever needed to be done in order to ensure there safety. They were paranoid in thinking there were Japanese spies mixed in with the Japaneses American population. Pearl Harbor was meant for the U.S., it happened in the U.S. and was threatening the U.S.'s well being and the well being of its citizens. Therefore I think the supreme court took some of that scared, frustration, anger, and paranoia out on the Japanese and Korematsu.
1. The U.S. Constitution says that respective war powers of the president and Congress is that their power does not extend to the power to seize private property.
2. The power of the president as “commander in chief” does not give him unlimited power to act in time of war because for example in the cases Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, Ex Parte Milligan (1866), and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) the president was overruled.
3. The Supreme Court rule in the Korematsu case with regard to President Roosevelt’s use of presidential power in wartime by saying the interment camps where constitutional.
4. I think that the Supreme Court was willing to defer to the president in Korematsu, but not in the other three cases because the Supreme Court saw these cases differently.
By: Monica T.
After reading the cases that involved President's powers during war time, the U.S. Constitution states that the power of the president and the congress increase compared to normal times, but it doesn't mean that they have absolute power. The power of the president as "commander in chief" does not give him unlimited power because he still has to follow the system of checks and balances as stated in the Supreme Court case youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, in the case the Supreme court ruled that the president's power during wartime does not extent his power to seize personal property. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government during the war but years later it apologised the surviving the Japanese Americans who were held in Internment camps.
Praveen S.
-The U.S. Constitution is saying that during war time the president and congress have more power over ceratin things.
-No i think the president has more power to act in time of war.
-The Supreme Court ruled that Korematsu should be treated the same as the rest of the Japanese- Americans, though they did not find evidence that he helped with tht bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Bridgette V
I strongly believe that the U.S. constitution says that the individual war powers of the president and congress doesn’t not have the right to say whether American rights can be limited like that. Of course the power of the president “commander in chief” does not give him unlimited power to act in time of. If it gave him unlimited power. In situation number one, Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, it states “The Court held that the President’s power during wartime does not extend to the power to seize private property. That power is not enumerated in Article 2 of the Constitution, and Congress had not given the President authorization…”. The Supreme Court ruled against Korematsu and said that the internment camps were not unconstitutional. Therefore the Supreme Court did give regards to President Roosevelt’s use of presidential power in wartime. I suppose the Supreme Court was willing to postpone the president in the Korematsu case, but not in the other three cases was because they didn’t know whether it would e violating the rights of an individual or not.
~Shazia R.
Period 4 class
1.That sometimes the limit the people's power a little too much.
2.It doesn't give him complete power because the people usually react to it in a negative way. Also that they can't really take over many things like in Youngstown sheet and tube co. v Sawyer.
3.They ruled by still putting hin into the internment camp, like every other japanese person during wartime.
4.Maybe because in Koramatsu's case they realized that the race of the person really shouldn't matter.
Eirene Skocos
Post a Comment