It is explained in the “Additional Details” box,,

It is explained in the “Additional Details” box,,
In January, 1946 the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada heard their
first case in the building which houses the court today: Reference re
Validity of Orders in Council in Relation to Persons of the Japanese
Race, [1946] S.C.R. 248 otherwise known as the Japanese Deportation
case. The federal government used the War Measures Act to issue
orders-in-council to require all Japanese, including those who were
born in Canada, to be given the choice of being sent to Japan or being
placed in internment camps. On behalf of the majority, Chief Justice
Rinfret held the orders-in-council were constitutional and that the
Cabinet ‘was the sole judge of the necessity or advisability of these
measures.’ At this time, Canada had no written constitutional
guarantees protecting persons from this kind of abusive government
action.

In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066
allowing the US military to declare parts of the US as military areas
and thereby exclude specific groups of people from them. The practical
application was that many Japanese-Americans were forced from their
homes and placed in internment camps during World War II. Fred
Korematsu, a US-born man of Japanese descent, knowingly defied the
order to be relocated, was arrested, and convicted. His case went to
the United States Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States, 323
U.S. 214 (1944), which concerned the constitutionality of the
executive order that allowed Japanese Americans to be held in
internment camps during World War II. The United States Supreme Court
held Executive Order 9066 was constitutional and Korematsu’s
conviction was upheld. At this time, the American constitution has
written constitutional guarantees, including the Fifth Amendment’s
command that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law, for persons against this kind of abuse of
governmental power.

Please review the cases noted above and write an essay exploring the
legal rationale of the majority and minority decision in these
matters. In your view, what role did the presence or lack of written
rights in the respective constitutions actually play in these majority
decisions? Did any Supreme Court justices involved in these cases
acknowledge that race played a role in their respective government
decision to enact such orders? If so, do you agree that these
decisions were tainted by racial, rather than proper legal, reasons?
Would it have been an improper attempt by either Supreme Court to
defend the civil rights of these persons given the wartime dilemmas of
their governments? Explain. Please remember to fully justify your
legal position within the terms of the relevant law as it existed at
the time these cases were decided.

By admin in Essays on August 21, 2015