DOCSLIB.ORG

Ex Parte Mitsuye Endo: Breaking Through Barbed Wire ​

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Ex parte Mitsuye Endo: Breaking Through Barbed Wire ​ Natalie Miller Historical Paper Junior Division Paper Length: 2499 Words Miller 1 Introduction Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, racism against people of Japanese ancestry spiked and the United States government issued restrictions on those of Japanese heritage, regardless of their citizenship status.1 Executive Order 9066 was signed, giving the military the power to evacuate all Japanese-American residents of the West Coast to internment camps.2 The conditions in these internment camps were reportedly worse than prison.3 Frustrated at the violation of their rights, many young Nisei (second-generation Japanese-Americans) resisted.4 Three Nisei resisted these orders and their cases (Hirabayashi v. ​ United States, Yasui v. United States, and Korematsu v. United States) were heard in the ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Supreme Court.5 In all three cases, internment was upheld.6 A fourth case, a due process lawsuit challenging whether there were lawful grounds for detention (a writ of habeas corpus), was filed ​ ​ by a Japanese-American named Mitsuye Endo.7 On December 18, 1944, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the internment of loyal citizens was unconstitutional.8 Within a month, all internment camps were closed.9 1 Reeves, Richard. Infamy: The Shocking Story of Japanese Internment in World War II. Henry Holt and Company, ​ ​ ​ 2015. 2 Ibid, 54. 3 Ibid, 104. 4 Okazaki, Steven, director. Unfinished Business. Farallon Films, 1985. <https://vimeo.com/ondemand/unfinishedb ​ ​ ​ usiness/300609902?autoplay=1> 5 Daniels, Roger. The Japanese American Cases: The Rule of Law in Time of War. University Press of Kansas, 2013. ​ ​ 6 Ibid, 176. 7 See Appendix A. ​ 8 Douglas, William Orville, and Supreme Court Of The United States. U.S. Reports: Ex Parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283. 1944. Periodical. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, <www.loc.gov/item/usrep323283/> 9 Earl Warren, Governor, “Public Proclamation No. 21,” California State Archives Exhibits, <http://exhibit ​ ​ s.sos.ca.gov/items/show/10617> Miller 2 By convincing the Supreme Court that the internment of Japanese-Americans was unconstitutional because it violated her fundamental due process rights, Endo’s lawsuit accomplished what others could not.10 When Mitsuye Endo successfully challenged internment, the physical and legal barriers that contained citizens behind barbed wire and restricted their freedom were broken. Although the racist treatment of Japanese-Americans continued even after they were released, ultimately Ex parte Endo ensured that no citizens would ever again be imprisoned on the basis of ancestry. ​ To this day, the decision continues to protect the fundamental due process rights of United States citizens. Background Prejudice against East Asians in the United States originated after mass Chinese immigration to the United States during California’s Gold Rush. These immigrants offered cheaper labor, angering white workers who saw them as threats to their livelihood.11 In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, prohibiting Chinese laborers from immigrating to the United States.12 However, discrimination and immigration of Japanese continued. In 1906, the San Francisco School Board sent children of Japanese heritage to a separate Chinese school, causing protests.13 The policy was reversed after Japan intervened and President Theodore Roosevelt, not wanting to antagonize the rising world power, opposed the segregation order.14 Despite the 10 Noel, Josh. “Mitsuye Tsutsumi.” The Chicago Tribune. 25 April 2006. <https://www.chicagotribune.com ​ ​ /news/ct-xpm-2006-04-25-0604250259-story.html> 11 “Asian American History” Japanese American Citizens League. Journey From the Gold Mountain: The Asian ​ American Experience. 2006. <https://jacl.org/asian-american-history/> ​ 12 Ibid, Paragraph 18. 13 “Gentlemen’s Agreement” Encyclopedia Britannica, 27 September 2019, <https://www.britannica.com/event ​ ​ /Gentlemens-Agreement> 14 Hosokawa, Bill. Nisei: The Quiet Americans. William Morrow and Company, Inc. 1969. ​ ​ Miller 3 racism they faced, Japanese people continued to immigrate to the United States in large numbers over the decades to come. Like the Chinese, they offered cheap labor in competition with white workers.15 On December 7, 1941, the Empire of Japan attacked the Pearl Harbor naval base and other targets in Hawaii.16 The next day, the United States declared war on Japan, officially entering World War II. Soon after, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began conducting raids on the homes of Japanese-Americans, attempting to remove “potentially dangerous enemy aliens.”17 These “enemy aliens” were leaders in local Japanese communities or Japanese Americans who worked near military bases.18 In the following months, anti-Japanese sentiment grew.19 On February 19, 1942, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066.20 This order authorized the evacuation of Japanese immigrants from military zones along the West Coast. On March 2, 1942, General John DeWitt, the West Coast Commander, issued Public Proclamation Number 3, requiring that Japanese-American residents of the West Coast conform to a curfew and travel limit. 21 In addition, all Japanese-American employees of the state of California were abruptly 15 “The Yellow Peril” The Commoner, Lincoln, Nebraska, Volume I Number 46, 6 December 1901. <https://chronicl ​ ​ ingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/46032385/1901-12-06/ed-1/seq-1/> 16 President Roosevelt’s “Day of Infamy” Address, December 8, 1941; Records of the U.S. Senate (Record Group 46) <https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/day-of-imfamy> 17 “Evacuation and Internment of San Francisco Japanese” The Museum of the City of San Francisco <http://www ​ ​ .sfmuseum.net/war/evactxt.html> 18 Ibid. 19 Reeves, Infamy: The Shocking Story of Japanese Internment in World War II, 9. ​ ​ 20 Ibid, 12. 21 DeWitt, John. “Public Proclamation No. 3” United States Army, Western Defense Command. 24 March 1942. <https://calisphere.org/item/0715c52f9388ee98ef4f593af6be7271/> Miller 4 fired.22 They were falsely accused of having dual citizenship with Japan, practicing traditional Japanese religions such as Buddhism and Shintoism, being members of Japanese organizations, and being opposed to the United States government.23 The government assumed that the employees would not contest the charges. However, some of these employees sought legal help through the Japanese -American Citizens League (JACL).24 Soon, the evacuation process was begun.25 Evacuees were given less than a week to settle their affairs. More than a hundred thousand American men, women, and children of Japanese ancestry were relocated to assembly centers throughout the West Coast.26 The inhabitants of these assembly centers were then loaded onto busses and transported to remote internment camps.27 In the Courts In early 1942, Saburo Kido, president of the JACL, contacted James Purcell,28 a lawyer, about the Japanese-American employees of the state who had been fired.29 Purcell agreed to take up their case for free.30 22 Miller, E. Vayne and the California State Personnel Board. Letter to Mitsuye Endo. 8 April 1942. James C. Purcell Collection, California State Library, box 3755, folder 6. 23 Irons, Peter. Justice At War: The Story of the Japanese American Internment Cases. Oxford University Press, ​ ​ 1983. 24 Ibid, 103. 25 Reeves, Infamy: The Shocking Story of Japanese Internment in World War II, 65. ​ ​ 26 Ibid, 67. 27 Ibid, 82. 28 See Appendix B. 29 Miller, E. Vayne and the California State Personnel Board. Letter to Mitsuye Endo. 8 April 1942. James C. Purcell Collection, California State Library, box 3755, folder 6. 30 Yogi, Stan. “James C. Purcell.” Densho Encyclopedia. 27 August 2018. <https://encyclopedia.densho. ​ ​ org/James%20C.%20Purcell/>. Miller 5 Shortly thereafter, Purcell visited the Tanforan Assembly Center.31 Purcell was shocked to discover that the conditions in the assembly centers were worse than those in prison.32 This motivated him to file a lawsuit fighting for the release of Japanese-Americans.33 Anticipating that a case challenging the firings of state employees on the basis of race would be dismissed, Purcell instead pursued a habeas corpus lawsuit.34 Purcell felt that a habeas corpus case challenging the ​ ​ ​ ​ constitutionality of interning loyal citizens without providing due process would be more successful than a criminal case challenging the race-based restrictions created by the military.35 To find a suitable candidate for the lawsuit, Purcell surveyed the former Japanese-American employees of the state, with the goal of finding someone without recent ties to Japan or Japanese culture.36 Mitsuye Endo had never attended a Japanese language school, could not speak Japanese, had never visited Japan, and did not practice either of the traditional Japanese religions, Buddhism or Shintoism. Additionally, her brother was serving in the United States military.37 Endo agreed to let Purcell file a habeas corpus lawsuit on her behalf.38 He did so on July ​ ​ 13, 1942.39 Unbeknownst to Purcell, Endo’s case would garner special attention from the War 31 Ibid. 32 Patrick Johnston Papers, “Correspondence on Endo Case,” California State Archives Exhibits, ​ ​ <http://exhibits.sos.ca.gov/items/show/10674>. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 Irons, Justice At War: The Story of the Japanese-American Internment Cases, 102. ​ ​ 37 Ibid, 102. 38 Tateishi, John. And Justice For All: An Oral History of the Japanese American Detention Camps. University of ​ ​ Washington Press, 1984. 39 Purcell, James C. Letter to Fired Japanese-American Employees of the State. James C. Purcell Collection, California State Library, box 3755, folder 5. Miller 6 Relocation Authority’s (WRA) lawyers, as they felt that this case was the most likely to be successful.40 The first barrier in the legal system was presented on July 20, 1942, when Judge Roche, the judge hearing Endo’s case, decided to hear the case during the hearing intended to set the date of argument.41 Purcell was surprised but ready. After hearing the case, Judge Roche seemed in favor of granting the petition.42 However, Judge Roche did not issue his decision until several months later.
Recommended publications
  • Structural Uncertainty Over Habeas Corpus the Jurisdiction of Military

    Structural Uncertainty Over Habeas Corpus the Jurisdiction of Military

    v5n4.book Page 397 Friday, June 28, 2002 9:19 PM Structural Uncertainty Over Habeas Corpus the Jurisdiction of Military Tribunals George Rutherglen ost lawyers are familiar with the the military and susceptible to prosecution writ of habeas corpus as the vehicle before military tribunals. My purpose in this Mfor a form of more or less limited brief comment is not to address the constitu- appellate review of criminal convictions. In tionality of such tribunals, which others have time of war, however, habeas corpus returns to already considered at length.1 It is, on the its traditional role, dating back to Magna contrary, to suggest that this question will not Carta, as a judicial remedy for unlawful be resolved in any clear-cut way. At least, this detention by the executive branch. And so, is the lesson of the cases from the Civil War today, we see a renewed debate over access to and World War II, the two principal sources the writ by suspected terrorists detained by of law on this subject.2 George Rutherglen is the O.M. Vicars Professor of Law and Earle K. Shawe Professor of Employment Law at the University of Virginia. He would like to thank Curt Bradley, Barry Cushman, Earl Dudley, Dave Martin, Ted White, and Ann Woolhandler for comments on previous drafts of this article. 1 For arguments supporting the constitutionality of the tribunals, see Curtis A. Bradley Jack L. Goldsmith, The Constitutional Validity of Military Commissions, 5 Green Bag 2d 249 (2002). For arguments against, see Neal K. Katyal Laurence H.
  • The Internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II

    The Internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II

    The Internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II Instructor: Robert Finkelstein Executive Order 9066 Public Law 503 Internment Most of the Japanese–Americans were released in early 1945 My Interests and Biases Naturalization Act of 1790 Amended in 1795, and 1798 Under John Adams Repealed in 1952 -McCarran-Walter Immigration Act Alien and Sedition Acts 1798 Quasi-War with France The Sedition Act and the Alien Friends Act were allowed to expire in 1800 and 1801, respectively Enemy Aliens Act did not expire American Nativism Nation of Immigrants Irish Immigration American Party – “Know Nothing” Blaine Amendment Nordic Race 14th Amendment Post Civil War Changed the balance with State Rights United States v. Wong Kim Ark In 1898 the Supreme Court decision in granted citizenship to an American-born child of Chinese parents Not been tested with other people Chinese and Japanese Immigration Chinese were ridiculed Japanese were praised this changed over time Lived in their own communities – similar to Irish, Italians, Jews, Polish, etc. Japanese immigrants arrive in Hawaii - 1868 Japanese immigrants arrive to the mainland United States 1869 Anti-Immigration Laws Welcoming Europeans – Statue of Liberty Chinese Exclusion Act is passed, prohibiting immigration from China. It was enforced between 1882 and 1892 San Francisco School Board passes a regulation sending all Japanese children to the segregated Chinese school Russo-Japanese War Feb. 8, 1904 Sneak Attack on the Russian Fleet in Port Arthur Japan was winning the war Treaty in Portsmouth, NH – Teddy Roosevelt – Noble Peace Prize Non white race defeats white race Theodore Roosevelt Theodore Roosevelt (like Taft after him) used the influence of the White House to prevent open anti-Japanese discrimination T.
  • Table of Cases

    Table of Cases

    TABLE OF CASES 2575 TABLE OF CASES Page 324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy, 479 U.S. 335 (1987)........................................................ 2247, 2550 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996)....... 1255, 1257–58, 2252, 2481, 2572 A A. & G. Stevedores v. Ellerman Lines, 369 U.S. 355 (1962).............................................. 1677 A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950).................. 330, 332–34 A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)...... 77–78, 83–84, 91–92, 94, 204–05, 576 A.L. Mechling Barge Lines v. United States, 368 U.S. 324 (1961)................................. 758–59 A. T. & T. Co. v. United States, 299 U.S. 232 (1936)......................................................... 1547 Aaron v. McKinley, 173 F.Supp. 944 (E.D. Ark. 1959)......................................................... 509 Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971).......................................................................... 2155–56 Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959)............................................................. 1459–60 Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967).................................................. 746, 755 Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 233 (2007).................................................... 1702, 2490 Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960)............................................................... 315, 1376 Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U.S. 765 (1931)....................................................... 1810, 1848 Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)...... 730, 1052, 1063, 1069–70, 1090–91, 1093, 1097, 1107, 2420 Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 506 (1859).......................................... 784, 876, 880, 969 Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977).................................................................... 1462 Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977).......................... 1132, 1181–82, 1209, 1232 A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v.
  • Principles of Federal Appropriations

    Principles of Federal Appropriations

    United States General Accounting Office GAO Office of the General Counsel January 2004 Principles of Federal Appropriations Law Third Edition Volume I As of September 14, 2017, chapters 1, 2, and 3 of the Fourth Edition of Principles of Federal Appropriations Law supersede chapters 1 through 4 of the Third Edition of Principles of Federal Appropriations Law. Chapters 5 through 15 of the Third Edition of Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, in conjunction with GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law: Annual Update to the Third Edition, remain the most currently available material on the topics discussed therein. All current chapters and the Annual Update to the Third Edition are available at www.gao.gov/legal/red-book/overview. This volume supersedes the Volume I, Second Edition of the Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, 1991. The Security of this file is set to prevent a situation where linked references are appended to the PDF. If this change prevents an Acrobat function you need (e.g., to extract pages), use the the password “redbook” to revise the document security aand enable the additional functions. GAO-04-261SP Abbreviations APA Administrative Procedure Act BLM Bureau of Land Management CDA Contract Disputes Act of 1978 CCC Commodity Credit Corporation C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations EAJA Equal Access to Justice Act EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation FY Fiscal Year GAO Government Accountability Office GSA General Services Administration HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development IRS Internal Revenue Service NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OMB Office of Management and Budget SBA Small Business Administration TFM Treasury Financial Manual U.S.C.
  • From Exclusion to Inclusion

    From Exclusion to Inclusion

    From Exclusion to Inclusion 1941–1992 Around 9 :00 in the morning on April 21, 1945, Daniel K. Inouye, a 20-year-old army lieutenant from Honolulu, Hawaii, was shot in the stomach on the side of a mountain in northwestern Italy. The German bullet went clean out his back and missed his spine by a fraction of an inch. “It felt like someone punched me,” he remembered years later. “But the pain was almost non-existent. A little ache, that’s all and since the bleeding was not much I said well, I’ll keep on going.”1 Later that morning, Inouye, a pre-med student who had been getting ready for church when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, was hit again. This time a rifle grenade nearly blew off his entire right arm. After picking up his tommy gun with his left hand, he continued to charge up the hill, firing at German soldiers as he went. Eventually shot in the leg, Inouye waited until his men seized control of the mountain before being evacuated.2 The war in Europe ended 17 days later. Inouye lived in military hospitals for the next two years to rebuild his strength and learn to do everyday tasks with one arm. The war forced him to adapt, and over the next two decades, the country he nearly died for began to adapt to the war’s consequences as well. For the most marginalized people—women and minorities, especially—World War II had profound implications for what it meant to be American.
  • And Japanese- American Internment During WW II

    And Japanese- American Internment During WW II

    The Shackles of the People of the Sun: Racism, “Military Necessity,” and Japanese- American Internment during WW II By Andrew J. Lee Junior Paper Word Count: 2490 1 On February 19, 1942, about two months after Pearl Harbor, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an Executive Order 9066, which authorized the internment of 107,000 Japanese people, two thirds being American citizens.1 Although it is the responsibility of the government to defend its country, its fear of “fifth columns,” groups that undermine a nation’s war effort from the inside, made the government overlook the fact that almost all Japanese immigrants and Japanese Americans, who had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, were loyal to the United States. This fear led the government to strip away their rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and incarcerated them without the Fifth Amendment due process. Their right to question the works of the government, under the First Amendment, was heavily penalized, and their equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment was denied solely on the basis of their appearance and skin color. The overemphasized responsibility of protecting its country, combined with pre-existing racism, blinded the government from acting rationally. The supremacy of military necessity, fueled by racism and ignorance, trumped the rights of its people and forcibly incarcerated them. This is the story of the “prisoners without trial.”2 For two and a half centuries, Japan had been closed to Western influence. When it was forcefully reopened for trade and global influence in 1852 by the Americans, opportunities for social mobility were presented to the children of the “Rising Sun,” as they could move to America to enjoy higher standards of living.
  • Brief in Opposition of Respondent ————

    Brief in Opposition of Respondent ————

    No. 03-1027 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— DONALD RUMSFELD, Petitioner, v. JOSE PADILLA AND DONNA R. NEWMAN, AS NEXT FRIEND OF JOSE PADILLA, Respondent. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ———— BRIEF IN OPPOSITION OF RESPONDENT ———— DAVID W. DEBRUIN DONNA R. NEWMAN JENNER & BLOCK LLP Counsel of Record 601 Thirteenth Street, NW 121 West 27th Street Suite 1200 Suite 1103 Washington, DC 20005 New York, New York 10001 (202) 639-6000 (212) 229-1516 JENNY S. MARTINEZ ANDREW G. PATEL 559 Nathan Abbott Way 111 Broadway, 13th Floor Stanford, California 94305 New York, New York 10006 (650) 725-2749 (212) 349-0230 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20001 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the President has the authority to imprison as an “enemy combatant” an American citizen seized on American soil outside a zone of combat. 2. Whether, if the President has such authority, (a) there are limitations on the circumstances in which such authority may be exercised and the length of time an individual may be imprisoned, and (b) the individual detained may challenge the President’s assertion of that authority at a meaningful hearing with the assistance of counsel. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................ i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................... iv STATEMENT ....................................1 REASONS TO DENY THE PETITION ..............10 A. Review By This Court Is Not Warranted Because The Court Of Appeals’ Holding On The Scope Of The President’s Authority Was Both Correct And Narrow. .............. 11 1. The Court of Appeals Correctly Held that Both the Constitution and Section 4001(a) Require that the Military Detention of American Citizens on American Soil Must Be Supported by Clear and Unmistakable Congressional Authorization.
  • The Constitution in the Supreme Court: the Second World War, 1941-1946

    The Constitution in the Supreme Court: the Second World War, 1941-1946

    Catholic University Law Review Volume 37 Issue 1 Fall 1987 Article 3 1987 The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Second World War, 1941-1946 David P. Currie Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation David P. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Second World War, 1941-1946, 37 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1 (1988). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol37/iss1/3 This Address is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LECTURES THE CONSTITUTION IN THE SUPREME COURT: THE SECOND WORLD WAR, 1941-1946 David P, Currie* When Harlan F. Stone was named to succeed Charles Evans Hughes as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1941, the ballgame was new and so were the players. Dead and buried were the once burning controversies over economic liberties and the scope of enumerated federal powers. While de- voting much of their attention to a number of troublesome issues brought about by the Second World War, the Justices were to focus increasingly on the new agenda of civil rights and liberties that Stone had laid out for them in United States v. Carolene Products Co.' in 1938.2 It was altogether fitting that Justice Stone, the prophet of the new order, was elevated to Chief Justice after fifteen distinguished years of intellectual leadership on the Court.3 The only other familiar face was that of Owen Roberts, who, more than any other single Justice, had helped to precipitate the change by abandoning his restrictive view of regulatory authority when he held the balance of power.4 All the other Justices owed their initial ap- pointments to President Franklin D.
  • The American Constitution

    The American Constitution

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Government Organization and Powers Political Science 410G Fall Semester, 2020 Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things. --Alexander Hamilton The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity--unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity. --Henry Clay Course Professor Dr. Richard J. (Rick) Hardy—Professor of Political Science Class Hours: 11:00 - 11:50 a.m., MWF, 308 Morgan Hall Office Hours: 2:00 - 3:30 p.m., MW, 8:00 – 8:50 F, or by Appointment* Professor's Office: 445 Morgan Hall Email: [email protected] Office Phone: 309-298-1534 *We live in difficult times. Because I am in the “high risk” category regarding Covid-19, my physician strongly recommends that, if at all possible, we avoid one-on-one meetings in my office. I will still hold office hours and be available for phone calls during those times. And, of course I will return emails in a prompt manner. RJH Course Description The United States Constitution is the solid foundation upon which all American government is built. The document is now 231 years old; it is the oldest, written, nation- state constitution in the world. And it is amazingly quite short. It contains a preamble, seven articles, twenty-seven formal amendments, and just over 7,000 words (about the length of the average daily newspaper's sport section). Unfortunately, it takes more than just a few minutes reading to understand the workings of this glorious document.
  • Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians Act

    Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians Act

    COMMISSION ON WARTIME RELOCATION AND INTERNMENT OF CIVILIANS ACT HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON S. 1647 MARCH 18, 1980 Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 63-293 O WASHINGTON : 1980 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, Connecticut, Chairman HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington CHARLES H. PERCY, Illinois THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri JACOB K. JAVITS, New York LAWTON CHILES, Florida WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware SAM NUNN, Georgia TED STEVENS, Alaska JOHN GLENN, Ohio CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, Jr., Maryland JIM SASSER, Tennessee JOHN C. DANFORTH, Missouri DAVID PRYOR, Arkansas WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine CARL LEVIN, Michigan DAVID DURENBERGER, Minnesota R ic h a r d A. W e g m a n , Chief Counsel and Staff Director M a r ily n A. H a r r is, Executive Administrator and Professional Staff Member Co n st a n c e B. E v a n s , Minority Staff Director E l iza b eth A. P r ea st, Chief Clerk \ CONTENTS Opening statements: Pa^e Senator Jackson............................................................................................................. 1 Senator Inouye................................................................................................................ 1 Senator Levin.................................................................................................................. 2 Senator Matsunaga.....................................................................................................
  • Japantown Revised May 2011 San Francisco, California

    Japantown Revised May 2011 San Francisco, California

    Historic Context Statement Japantown Revised May 2011 San Francisco, California Prepared for City & County of San Francisco Planning Department DONNA GRAVES and page & turnbull, inc. 724 Pine Street, San Francisco, California 94108 415.362.5154 / www.page-turnbull.com SAN FRANCISCO JAPANTOWN HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT FINAL DRAFT MAY 2009 Prepared for The San Francisco Planning Department as part of the Japantown Better Neighborhood Plan by DONNA GRAVES and PAGE & TURNBULL, INC. Historic Context Statement Japantown Final Draft San Francisco, California Cover Image: Japantown Businesses along Geary Street, 1910s. (Collection of National Japanese American Historical Society) May 2009 2 Donna Graves Page & Turnbull, Inc. Historic Context Statement Japantown Final Draft San Francisco, California SAN FRANCISCO JAPANTOWN HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................ 5 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 6 HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN JAPANTOWN................................................................................ 7 UNDERSTANDING HISTORIC CONTEXTS IN ETHNIC NEIGHBORHOODS ............................... 8 THE WESTERN ADDITION OF SAN FRANCISCO: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW.................... 10 EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE
  • The Constitution in the Supreme Court: the Second World War, 1941-1946

    The Constitution in the Supreme Court: the Second World War, 1941-1946

    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1987 The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Second World War, 1941-1946 David P. Currie Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David P. Currie, "The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Second World War, 1941-1946," 37 Catholic University Law Review 1 (1987). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LECTURES THE CONSTITUTION IN THE SUPREME COURT: THE SECOND WORLD WAR, 1941-1946 David P, Currie* When Harlan F. Stone was named to succeed Charles Evans Hughes as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1941, the ballgame was new and so were the players. Dead and buried were the once burning controversies over economic liberties and the scope of enumerated federal powers. While de- voting much of their attention to a number of troublesome issues brought about by the Second World War, the Justices were to focus increasingly on the new agenda of civil rights and liberties that Stone had laid out for them in United States v. Carolene Products Co.' in 1938.2 It was altogether fitting that Justice Stone, the prophet of the new order, was elevated to Chief Justice after fifteen distinguished years of intellectual leadership on the Court.3 The only other familiar face was that of Owen Roberts, who, more than any other single Justice, had helped to precipitate the change by abandoning his restrictive view of regulatory authority when he held the balance of power.4 All the other Justices owed their initial ap- pointments to President Franklin D.