KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES - 1944
The United States military authority declared some areas of the country "critical to national defense and potentially vulnerable to espionage" and ordered those of Japanese descent to leave. The Supreme Court declared this constitutional because although Korematsu's rights were violated, the United States was in a circumstance of "emergency and peril."
I felt that this was extremely interesting because the government was singling the Japanese (and Japanese-Americans) out... I know that today, the national government can tell people to move because they want to build something on the people's land (eg a highway), but those people are compensated. I wonder if the Japanese were compensated as well.
MAPP v. OHIO - 1960
Ohio police illegally searched Dollree Mapp's house for a fugitive and found that she had "obscene materials" in her possession. She "appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression." The Supreme Court decided that since the evidence that was collected in violation of the fourth amendment (search and seizure), it was not legit in court.
I found this intriguing because although Mapp might have done something illegal, she was "let go" because the method by which the evidence was obtained violated her rights.
LEMON v. KURTZMAN - 1970
Pennsylvania and Rhode Island had statutes that "provided financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to non-public schools. The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools. Each statute made aid available to 'church-related educational institutions.'" The Supreme Court decided that the states violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. I found it a bit strange how this clause was put "into action"; the states could not help fund non-public, religious schools.
Wow! The first case is really very interesting and personally, I do not believe the court should have ruled it constitutional even though the were in a "state of emergency". We might want to look it up but you bring up a great question: were the Japanese compensated? How long did the government tell the Japanese to leave? Did this ever become unconstitutional (over turned by another case)? Good choices!
ReplyDelete~Hope
At Map vs. Ohio, I think this is an interesting case. Even with evidence against the suspect, the evidence was collected illegally and in violation of her fourth amendment rights. Its funny that even with evidence against someone, they still can get off even if that evidence was obtained in violation. How would you keep the courts from being biased? Even if you did throw out the evidence, isn't the court still influenced by the information?
ReplyDelete