Sign In
Not register? Register Now!
Essay Available:
12 pages/≈3300 words
12 Sources
English (U.S.)
MS Word
Total cost:
$ 58.32

It is explained in the "Additional Details" box,, (Essay Sample)

Essay: In January, 1946 the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada heard their first case in the building which houses the court today: Reference re Validity of Orders in Council in Relation to Persons of the Japanese Race, [1946] S.C.R. 248 otherwise known as the Japanese Deportation case. The federal government used the War Measures Act to issue orders-in-council to require all Japanese, including those who were born in Canada, to be given the choice of being sent to Japan or being placed in internment camps. On behalf of the majority, Chief Justice Rinfret held the orders-in-council were constitutional and that the Cabinet ‘was the sole judge of the necessity or advisability of these measures.' At this time, Canada had no written constitutional guarantees protecting persons from this kind of abusive government action. In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 allowing the US military to declare parts of the US as military areas and thereby exclude specific groups of people from them. The practical application was that many Japanese-Americans were forced from their homes and placed in internment camps during World War 2. Fred Korematsu, a US-born man of Japanese descent, knowingly defied the order to be relocated, was arrested, and convicted. His case went to the United States Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), which concerned the constitutionality of the executive order that allowed Japanese Americans to be held in internment camps during World War 2. The United States Supreme Court held Executive Order 9066 was constitutional and Korematsu's conviction was upheld. At this time, the American constitution has written constitutional guarantees, including the Fifth Amendment's command that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, for persons against this kind of abuse of governmental power. Please review the cases noted above and write an essay exploring the legal rationale of the majority and minority decision in these matters. In your view, what role did the presence or lack of written rights in the respective constitutions actually play in these majority decisions? Did any Supreme Court justices involved in these cases acknowledge that race played a role in their respective government decision to enact such orders? If so, do you agree that these decisions were tainted by racial, rather than proper legal, reasons? Would it have been an improper attempt by either Supreme Court to defend the civil rights of these persons given the wartime dilemmas of their governments? Explain. Please remember to fully justify your legal position within the terms of the relevant law as it existed at the time these cases were decided. _____________________________________ *** Make sure you address the various aspects of the topic necessary to answering the topic. You must independently assess how much space to devote to each aspect, depending on the importance it appears to have in the context of the question as a whole. This paper's text is strictly written in 12 point font, with a title page, page numbers, footnotes, bibliography and citations following the Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation (McGill Guide) format. source..
Running Head: LAW Legal rationale concerning minority and majority decisions within the cases Name: Institution: Course: Tutor: Date: Legal rationale concerning minority and majority decisions within the cases Case 1 Case review This case is regarded as the Japanese deportation and the various occurrences which were experienced may be reviewed as follows. For instance, the case involved a well-known decision by Canada’s Supreme Court whereby government order was issued to deport citizens from Canada who had Japanese descent. Federal government through the use of the War Measures Act subjected an order within the Council, in which case it required Japanese nationals together with those born within Canada to be offered a choice concerning being placed within internment camps or moving to Japan. This was aimed at doing away with mixture of racial groups within the nation because they were believed to contribute to the conflicts which were experienced. Following the war, it is clear that the order within council which authorized deportation practices was challenged upon the foundation that Japanese’s forced deportation was undesirable crime which acted against humanity. It brought out arguments that deporting individuals from their country was undesirable. The case was therefore referred to Supreme Court. A variety of decisions were brought out aimed at establishing the law validity. Within a decision which was regarded as five-to-two, the court regarded the law as valid. It was found out by three out of five judges that the involved order was completely valid. However, the remaining two judges pointed out that the prerequisite including children and women as national security threats was invalid. Within disagreement, Justice Roy Kellock and Justice Ivan Rand applied concepts regarding rights’ bill which was unwritten in form. They discovered that federal government had no substantial power to drive out individuals from the country they belonged to without appropriate hearing. The deportation order ended up facing cancellation due to the fact that it did not support humanity hence was not supported by law. Order cancellation was aimed at doing away with mistreatment acts which were experienced by individuals who were forced to shift, because their rights as individuals were highly violated. This therefore would stop similar occurrences within future periods. Legal rationale concerning minority and majority decision The legal rationale with respect to minority and majority decisions within the case concerning Japanese deportation may be expressed as follows. Within the case concerning Japanese deportation, federal government applied an act concerning war measures to call for shifting of Japanese individuals to Japan or internment camps. This aspect was supported by majority, in which case it was perceived as constitutional in form, with cabinet being sole judge concerning advisability or necessity of the various measures. Individuals could not be protected from the abusive actions taken up by government because of lack of a constitution in written form. The various aspects which were involved within minority and majority decision were aimed at facilitating realization of peaceful conditions. The experienced wars were thought to be Through following majority towards decision making, it was believed that majority would come up with correct judgment. However, the outcomes were undesirable because it brought about mistreatment of Japanese individuals who were forced to shift to Japan or internment camps. The law always seeks to meet individuals’ expectations through justice, hence it is apparent that in this case justice expectations were not met. Justice therefore ought to be applied in this case wherein mistreatment acts would be done away with. As a result of the undesirable outcomes which came up aft...
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:

You Might Also Like Other Topics Related to world war 2: