The United States during times of war has done many things that it should not have. Some of those include stripping American citizens of their rights. Example cases in which citizens’ rights have been violated include Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v Sawyer, Hamdi v Rumsfeld, and Korematsu v United States. The Supreme Court has done a good job for the most part in upholding the constitutional rights of the citizens during times of war and national security crisis. The Supreme Court has done a good job especially in the following cases of upholding the rights of its citizens during times of war. In the cases Hamdi v Rumsfeld, the United States under the Bush administration held Hamdi as an enemy combatant “captured in a combat zone” in Afghanistan.
…show more content…
Once the case reached the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court decided that the president did have powers to hold Hamdi. The second question was whether Hamdi had the right to counsel and to contest his enemy combatant status. The Supreme Court decided that Hamdi did have a right to counsel and to contest his detention in front of an independent tribunal. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld Hamdi’s rights as an American citizen by saying that the executive branch was in the wrong by denying Hamdi of his sixth amendment’s right to counsel. This shows that even though Hamdi was supposedly captured while firing upon American soldiers that being an American citizen, he still deserved his rights The Supreme Court would not allow the executive branch to take them from him. In Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v Sawyer, the executive branch under President Truman seized and operated steel mills during the Korean War. This was done because the workers of the steel mills were on strike, so Truman enacted the Taft-Harley act and told the Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize and operate the mills. …show more content…
The United States through an executive order tried to force Korematsu and all other Japanese-Americans into internment camps after the Pearl Harbor attacks. Congress approved this executive order and created consequences for its violation. This was said to try and avoid spying and sabotage. Korematsu refused to leave his home and was arrested for violating the executive order. The Supreme Court decided on this case to uphold the executive order on the basis that they did not want to reject the judgement of military authorities and congress on potentially bad Japanese-Americans. The Supreme Court basically said that they did not know who was possibly a spy or terrorist that would cause trouble in the United States, so they did not want to question the judgement of other officials. In this case, the inconsistency of upholding the rights of Korematsu can be justified by saying that the holding of tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans is right, when it can protect the lives of millions of other American citizens. This meaning that the Supreme Court did not know if any of the Japanese-Americans being held would or would not harm other American citizens’ lives. So, the Supreme Court left the judgement up to Military officials and Congress, in order to protect the lives of
Once the case reached the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court decided that the president did have powers to hold Hamdi. The second question was whether Hamdi had the right to counsel and to contest his enemy combatant status. The Supreme Court decided that Hamdi did have a right to counsel and to contest his detention in front of an independent tribunal. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld Hamdi’s rights as an American citizen by saying that the executive branch was in the wrong by denying Hamdi of his sixth amendment’s right to counsel. This shows that even though Hamdi was supposedly captured while firing upon American soldiers that being an American citizen, he still deserved his rights The Supreme Court would not allow the executive branch to take them from him. In Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v Sawyer, the executive branch under President Truman seized and operated steel mills during the Korean War. This was done because the workers of the steel mills were on strike, so Truman enacted the Taft-Harley act and told the Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize and operate the mills. …show more content…
The United States through an executive order tried to force Korematsu and all other Japanese-Americans into internment camps after the Pearl Harbor attacks. Congress approved this executive order and created consequences for its violation. This was said to try and avoid spying and sabotage. Korematsu refused to leave his home and was arrested for violating the executive order. The Supreme Court decided on this case to uphold the executive order on the basis that they did not want to reject the judgement of military authorities and congress on potentially bad Japanese-Americans. The Supreme Court basically said that they did not know who was possibly a spy or terrorist that would cause trouble in the United States, so they did not want to question the judgement of other officials. In this case, the inconsistency of upholding the rights of Korematsu can be justified by saying that the holding of tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans is right, when it can protect the lives of millions of other American citizens. This meaning that the Supreme Court did not know if any of the Japanese-Americans being held would or would not harm other American citizens’ lives. So, the Supreme Court left the judgement up to Military officials and Congress, in order to protect the lives of