|
1. When the exclusion order
was enacted, all danger of Japanese
invasion of that designated
area had disappeared. Additionally,
removal from our homes for a
seemingly indefinite period
is a far greater infringement
on our rights than a curfew.
2. The order limits the rights
of a group of people based on
their nationality, therefore
violating the Fourteenth Amendment
of the Constitution. In its
inclusion of all people of Japanese
ancestry, regardless of loyalty
or citizenship, the order sweeps
too broadly. The racist order
fails to protect the nation
from the real threat that spies
may pose.
3. This order is inconsistent
with basic governmental institutions
and constitutional guarantees,
and discriminates unjustly on
the basis of race and national
origin.
|
1. This exclusion order is similar
to the curfew order we have
already upheld; both are intended
to prevent espionage in danger
zones in a time of war.
2. The order was narrowly
tailored to the purpose it was
designed to serve. This is not
a matter of racial prejudice
but of military necessity. It
is not within the Court's power
to question the judgment of
the military and Congress that
certain disloyal members of
the population constitute a
menace to the national defense
and safety.
3. In assessing the constitutionality
of this order, the Court must
balance the rights of the government
to act in its own best interest
in times of emergency against
the individual's constitutionally
guaranteed rights. We are living
in a time in which the former
must trump the latter.
|
