Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Assessing Patriot in Terms of Korematsu v. United States. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 4 page paper assessing the Patriot Act in terms of the 1944 case Korematsu v. United States in which the Supreme Court upheld the relocation of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Though the provisions of Patriot and the conditions of Executive Order 9066 share many similarities, there is far less similarity in the perspective of 1944 and perspective today. Considered within the framework of the 1944 vantage, Patriot likely would be upheld by the Court. Considered in 2006 perspective, it is possible that the Court would find the custody provisions of Patriot to be unconstitutional. Bibliography lists 4 sources.
Page Count:
4 pages (~225 words per page)
File: CC6_KSraceKorPatriot.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
The means by which Japanese-Americans were herded to camps, lost material possessions, were separated from family members and were generally relegated to second-class status was regrettable. Some
actions against Japanese-Americans can be seen as being criminal. Six members of the Supreme Court as it existed in 1944 concluded that being rounded up and contained within a
specific area following the attack on Pearl Harbor and declaration of war was not unreasonable in a time of true military emergency. The
Patriot Act enacted following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 enables law enforcement personnel similar freedom in detaining and taking into custody individuals on the basis of race or
ethnicity alone. The purpose here is to assess Patriot in terms of the 1944 case Korematsu v. United States. Racial Profiling in 1944
In delivering the opinion of the Court in Korematsu v. United States, Justice Hugo Black wrote: It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail
the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject
them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can. The Court
also was careful to note that Korematsu was guilty of following a general wartime decision that all persons of Japanese descent would be excluded from a specific area around and
including San Leandro, California. His loyalty to the United States was not in question and was not a matter of scrutiny. Justices
...