1. War Powers, Immigration, and Civil Liberties
Korematsu vs US
War Powers, Immigration,
and Civil Liberties

2. The Question
Should the government be able to arbitrarily suspend/amend civil rights?
(think fast vs. slow moving government)

3. Executive Order
to command the placement of Japanese residents and Japanese citizens who were staying or located in the United States into special facilities where they were excluded from the general population.
The case of Korematsu v. United States deals with military law. This aspect of law is a legal field within Federal Law, which addresses the activity and behavior of military personnel, including issues of treason, war crimes and criminal offenses directed towards military personnel.

4. Korematsu v. United States: The Case Profile
The trial was initiated by Korematsu in response to Roosevelt’s executive order. Koramatsu believed that forced residency was illegal. Korematsu brought his case to the Supreme Court by stating that imprisonment of his people was a direct violation of civil liberties and the human rights afforded to American citizens in the United States Constitution. 

5. The Verdict
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States, claiming that based on military law, the preservation and protection of the general population of the United States outweighed the individual who was detained in a prison camp.
During a time of war, the government was allowed to pass certain laws that may not be legal in times of peace. 

6. 10 Camps
Arizona (2), Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, California (2), Idaho, and Arkansas (2)

8. Tulelake

15. The Question #2
Was it right for the government to remove Japanese-Americans from the West coast after Pearl Harbor?

16. The Question #3 What about camera’s on city streets?
(post Boston Marathon bombing)
Is this a civil rights question? Or a safety question?
Are you in favor of giving up Civil Rights in the name of safety?

17. Airport Security
Since 9-11 we have given up some freedom in the name of safety….
TSA was pretty much non-existent prior to 9-11

18. TSA since

20. The Korematsu if the 2010’s
Hispanic-Americans having Civil Rights infringed upon in the name of “safety”?
2nd episode of “guilty” until proven innocent?

21. Arizona’s immigration law SB 1070
Allowed police to stop people of Hispanic decent and have them show papers to prove there resident/citizenship status

22. Arizona SB 1070 (2010)

23. SB 1070 Challenged and reviewed by the SPOTUS
Was changed to: when accused of committing a crime in Arizona, the police can ask the accused to show proof of legal residence status

24. U.S. Supreme Court ruling
On June 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case Arizona v. United States. The court determined by a 5–3 majority, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the opinion, that Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of SB 1070 are preempted by federal law.[253][254][255] These sections make it a state misdemeanor for an immigrant not to be carrying documentation of lawful presence in the country, allow state police to arrest without a warrant in some situations, and make it unlawful under state law for an individual to apply for employment without federal work authorization.[27][256][257] All justices agreed to uphold the portion of the law allowing Arizona state police to investigate the immigration status of an individual stopped, detained, or arrested if there is reasonable suspicion that individual is in the country illegally.[258] However, Justice Kennedy specified in the majority opinion that state police may not detain the individual for a prolonged amount of time for not carrying immigration documents, and that cases based upon allegations of racial profiling are allowed to proceed through the courts, if such cases happen to arise later on.[258]
Justice Scalia dissented and said that he would have upheld the entire law.[259] Justice Thomas likewise stated that he would have upheld the entire law as not preempted by federal law.[259] Justice Alito agreed with Justices Scalia and Thomas regarding Sections 5(C) and 6, but joined with the majority in finding Section 3 preempted.[259]
Further rulings and challenges
On September 5, 2012, Judge Bolton cleared the way for police to carry out the 2010 law's requirement that officers, while enforcing other laws, may question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally.[125] She said that the Supreme Court had clearly stated that the provision "cannot be challenged further on its face before the law takes effect," but that constitutionality challenges on other grounds could take place in the future.[125] Later that month, the first arrest received some news attention.[126] In November 2013, the ACLU filed the first legal challenge to this provision.[260]

25. Assignment 1
Read the article from the link above
Civil Rights (Chapter 5 and 6)
Analyze the outcome of the Korematsu decision in 1988/1992 in a paragraph. Then compare/contrast Korematsu with either airport security or Arizona SB Write a second paragraph explaining how they are either similar or dissimilar in their relationship to the suspension of Civil Rights in their respective circumstances. Do you think in the future the same understanding of these events could come to be?

26. Assignment 2 http://www.sfmuseum.org/war/evactxt.html
Pick any 2 articles to summarize. One from each month. Is the article fact or opinion (Chapter 12 pg 304)? Is the article about a social or economic issue (Chapter 18 and 19)? Does your article identify a government agency or department (Chapter 15)?
2 paragraphs total