Reply With Quote
yes I agree we need to take action.. you'd be the first I'd talk to
Obama has been the best thing to happen to the gun industry and NRA in long time.. yet you have the morons starting threads like this trying to imply that Obama is bad on guns..lol
yes I agree we need to take action.. you'd be the first I'd talk to
George bean3r I will you up
Sorry, but I missed learning about the part of the cons ution that allows the government to round up and intern Japanese-Americans solely on the basis of their race. Care to educate me on that?
WC is right. Supreme Court upheld the Presidential order. Korematsu.
Correct. But that in no way diminishes the fact that Japanese internment cons uted one of the greatest infringements on due process rights in the past 100 years. Most cons utional scholars consider Korematsu a supreme embarrassment. And as for WC's point, Korematsu wasn't a habeas case, so I'm not sure which parts of the cons ution he's referring to.
One last thing; DOJ effectively denounced Korematsu in 2011. It has no precedential value now, fwiw.
However embarrassing it is, it's still the law of the land. Supreme Court decisions are part of the Cons ution.
is that the same thing as it being overturned? mightn't a different DOJ issue subsequent guidance that's different?
Yes and no. Decisions construe the cons ution, but that doesn't make it part of the do ent. Interpretations come and go with the courts whims
Technically, no. It remains on the books, but neutered.
And yes, a different DOJ could do what you say, just as a different SCOTUS can reverse any of its prior decisions
in other words, it's entirely possible you're overstating the demise of Korematsu, just as it's entirely possible the future will prove you correct.
like Roe v Wade, for example?
No. Justice Souters concurring opinion in Hamdi gives a good example of the Court's unwillingness to apply Korematsu with any precedential value.
I suppose so
it reflects Souter's opinion, sure. that it stands in for the rest of them is mainly your rhetorical flourish.
understatement isn't your thing, huh?
Care to clarify what was overstated?
the quaintness of Korematsu and the significance of a single SC Justice's opinion, for example
sorry, you were teasing WC when he was right, I interrupted. Please do continue.
Still don't think so. The government's brief and the majority opinion in Hamdi failed to cite to Korematsu. How do you explain that?
Korematsu is the only case where the government's use of racial discrimination survived strict scrutiny. How do you explain the Court's refusal to follow Korematsu's lead and hold other instances of discrimination also survive strict scrutiny
The House repealed the Emergency Detention Act of 1950 out of fear that the statute would authorize repe ion of the events in Korematsu. That concern was stated in legislative history. If Korematsu still has binding precedential value, why would the House express this concern?
Also, what significance would you ascribe to Souter and Gingsberg's concurrence? None?
we obviously disagree.
you could turn out to be right, odds might even be for it. but we don't know how it's going to turn out.
does this concern bind or restrain the state in any way from repeating them?The House repealed the Emergency Detention Act of 1950 out of fear that the statute would authorize repe ion of the events in Korematsu. That concern was stated in legislative history. If Korematsu still has binding precedential value, why would the House express this concern?
no, it doesn't. it's just whining.
to clarify, good idea not to do it.
I'd argue that it binds the ability of the Executive to detain individuals absent a congressional declaration.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
