Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: inquest
Yes, I was a bit surprised myself when I heard someone say that, but I heard it from more than one source so it intrigued me.

Here we go - Korematsu's conviction was overturned.

KOREMATSU V. THE UNITED STATES, 584 F. SUPP. 1406 (N.D. CAL. 1984)

For detention in the same era, see Ex parte Endo, 323 US 283 (1944). It's a good read, and I urge you to peruse it.

Good brief review of history in Brief of Stone noted below.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (October 3, 2003) -- Fred Korematsu filed a "friend-of-the-court" brief in the Supreme Court of the United States today asking the high court to review the constitutionality of prolonged executive detentions under the Bush administration's "war on terrorism." The amicus brief was filed in the cases of Khaled Odah v. United States, Shafiq Rasul v. George W. Bush and Yasir Hamdi v. Donald Rumsfeld. Each of the plaintiffs has been held without formal charges, without any fair hearing to determine "guilt" or innocence, without the assistance of counsel, and without any meaningful judicial review.

"This is an extraordinary convergence of events, spanning sixty years of this nation's history," said Geoffrey R. Stone, primary author of the Korematsu brief. "More than sixty years ago, Mr. Korematsu had the courage to challenge the constitutionality of President Franklin Roosevelt's 1942 Executive Order that authorized the internment of 120,000 individuals of Japanese ancestry on the West Coast of the United States. He has committed himself to ensuring that Americans do not forget the lessons of their own history."

Korematsu was convicted of refusing to obey the internment order and sent to prison. In Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), the Supreme Court upheld his conviction, ruling that because the United States was at war, the government could constitutionally intern him [Cboldt: Nope - it did not so rule! See the case], without a hearing, and without any adjudicative determination that he had done anything wrong [he was in violation of an administrative order]. In 1983, Korematsu's conviction was overturned by Judge Marilyn Patel of the United States District Court in response to a writ of coram nobis, filed on his behalf by a team of attorneys, many of whose parents had also been interned. More than half-a-century after his internment, Korematsu was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, for his courage and persistence in opposing this injustice. "We should be vigilant to make sure this will never happen again," Korematsu said.

The amicus brief argues that the petitioners in these cases have been unconstitutionally deprived of their liberty because they have been held for extended periods of time without any opportunity for a fair hearing before a competent tribunal.

"The extreme nature of the government's position in these cases is reminiscent of its positions in past episodes, in which the United States too quickly sacrificed civil liberties in the rush to accommodate overbroad claims of military necessity," explained attorney Stone, the Harry Kalven, Jr. Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago. "In order to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, the Supreme Court should make clear in these cases that the United States respects fundamental constitutional and human rights - even in time of war."

"These cases present the Supreme Court with a direct test of whether it will meet its deepest constitutional responsibilities to uphold the law in a clear-eyed and courageous manner," Stone added

In addition to Stone, Korematsu is represented by David A. Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School and Stephen J. Schulhofer of New York University Law School.

http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/press_korematsu.html

And from the decision that vacated the conviction ...

This court's decision today does not reach any errors of law suggested by petitioner. At common law, the writ of coram nobis was used to correct errors of fact. United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 507-13, 74 S.Ct. 247, 250- 253, 90 L.Ed. 248 (1954). It was not used to correct legal errors and this court has no power, nor does it attempt, to correct any such errors.

Thus, the Supreme Court's decision stands as the law of this case and for whatever precedential value it may still have. Justices of that Court and legal scholars have commented that the decision is an anachronism in upholding overt racial discrimination as "compellingly justified." "Only two of this Court's modern cases have held the use of racial classifications to be constitutional." Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 507, 100 S.Ct. 2758, 2789, 65 L.Ed.2d 902 (1980) (Powell, J., concurring and referring to Korematsu and Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943)). See also L.H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law §§ 16-6, 16-14 (1978). The government acknowledged its concurrence with the Commission's observation that "today the decision in Korematsu lies overruled in the court of history."

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pp/korematsu_II.htm


486 posted on 12/28/2005 1:04:27 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt; ndt; Howlin

An excellent article discussing the legal aspects:

FISA vs. the Constitution

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007734


-- snip --

"Ultimately, as the courts have noted, the test is whether the legitimate government interest involved--in this instance, discovering and preventing new terrorist attacks that may endanger tens of thousands of American lives--outweighs the privacy interests of individuals who are communicating with al Qaeda terrorists. And just as those of us who fly on airplanes have accepted intrusive government searches of our luggage and person without the slightest showing of probable cause, those of us who communicate (knowingly or otherwise) with foreign terrorists will have to accept the fact that Uncle Sam may be listening.

Our Constitution is the supreme law, and it cannot be amended by a simple statute like the FISA law. Every modern president and every court of appeals that has considered this issue has upheld the independent power of the president to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant. The Supreme Court may ultimately clarify the competing claims; but until then, the president is right to continue monitoring the communications of our nation's declared enemies, even when they elect to communicate with people within our country."


487 posted on 12/28/2005 2:01:58 PM PST by Pragmatic_View
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt
"This court's decision today does not reach any errors of law suggested by petitioner. At common law, the writ of coram nobis was used to correct errors of fact."

Ah, so there's the rub. They weren't trying to correct the precedent set by the higher court. This ruling came up in discussions about whether lower courts had the power to go against legal holdings by higher courts, and this was cited as an example of a lower court doing just that. But as the above shows, the court was not doing that after all.

Thanks for the link. That was very helpful.

488 posted on 12/28/2005 2:55:19 PM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson