Duncan v. Kahanamoku - Essay Example

Analysis of the Case of Duncan v. Kahanamoku Analysis of the Case of Duncan v. Kahanamoku Summary of the Case Shortly after the Japanese surprise Pearl Harbor attack in the year 1941, Joseph B. Poindexter the then Hawaii territorial governor, declared martial law and suspended the habeas corpus writ. Other than the law, the governor authorized the military commanding general of Department of Hawaii, then Lieutenant General Walter Short, "to exercise all of the powers normally exercised by judicial officers and employees (Robinson, 2009)" in the Hawaii territory.

Following this law, the military rule lasted for nearly three years in a Hawaii until President Franklin D. Roosevelt revoked the rule. Following the arrest of Lloyd C. Duncan, the Supreme Court started to address the legality of the martial law in Hawaii. Duncan was a civilian who worked for the navy. He was arrested on February 24, 1944 for an assault. Under the martial law, the military tribunal tried, convicted, and sentenced Duncan for six months in prison. However, Duncan challenged the legality of his imprisonment and that of the tribunal y filling a habeas corpus petition (Robinson, 2009).

Notably, he was granted the petition and was released from prison. Nonetheless, the release decision was then overturned on appeal. Moreover, on February 25, 1946, the Supreme Court struck the conviction of Duncan ultimately. In overruling the opinion, Justice Black mainly looked at whether the congress had authorized the civilians’ trial by the military commission under the Hawaii’s declaration of the martial law. Issue: Did the Organic Act that initiated martial law permitted the armed forces in any way to supplant all other civilian laws?

Or did the martial law substitute military trials for the judicial trials for the conditions that existed during the time Duncan or other petitioners were being tried in Hawaii? Rule: There were such rules that military tribunals could subject civilian to such trials; therefore, the trial and conviction of Duncan was unjustified. The same justification is founded in the [327 U.S. 304, 325] martial law which is a provision in the Hawaii Organic Law (Robinson, 2009). Moreover, the Bill of Right hinders such trials as founded in the constitution of the United States.

It should be noted that despite Hawaii not being a state during this period, it still formed part of the larger United States of America; thus, it should have complied and protected the constitution of the United States (Robinson, 2009). Analysis: Looking at the relationship between the martial law and Organic Act, there was no provision for diffusing territory under the martial law. However, the Organic Act may have given the military tribunal a chance to act the way they did since the act did not define the term and boundaries of the martial law.

Therefore, the better understanding of the application of martial law and its applicability in Duncan’s case, Justice Black looked at the history to understand or determine whether the Congress had intended to give the military such elaborate authority. It is worth noting that such authority was articulated clearly in the constitution especially in line with constitutional authority of the executive as spelled under the martial law (Robinson, 2009). Therefore, it was improper for the military to exercise such powers.

Moreover, despite the lack of inclusion of the martial law in the then constitution it suppressed any institution especially the executive to include other ultimate authorities that will include the civilian and the military in a commission at least as it was in the case of Duncan. From the constitutional perspective and authorization of the martial law, it is clear that the Congress had no intension in the Hawaii Organic Act to replace civilian Courts with the military jurisdiction. Moreover, it is clear that the Congress enacted the Hawaiian Organic Act and then authorized the enactment of the martial law (Robinson, 2009).

However, these laws never intended to exceed the boundary of the military to that of the civilians. Nonetheless, the military and the executive have been acting slightly beyond their jurisdiction thereby interfering with rights of the civilians and this has never been then case constitutionally. Conclusion: The military as well as the executives must be using laws and their authorities as stipulated in the laws and expected by the constitution. In the case of Duncan v. Kahanamoku, the martial law was stipulated to help govern and defend the island from possible invasions and or rebellious threats but not to authorize court supplanting by military tribunals.

Therefore, even though the powers of the executive including the president’s authority are always paramount, there is necessity that such authorities or actions be supported by pre-conditions fueling such actions (Robinson, 2009). As in the Duncan’s case, the civilian must never be seen to be threatened by the security that should actually protect them. It should be noted such actions constitutes to violation of human right as provided for in the constitution; thus, they should be evaded at all costs.

Reference Top of Form Robinson, G. (2009). A tragedy of democracy: Japanese confinement in North America. New York: Columbia University Press. Bottom of Form