Ex Parte Endo - Research Paper Example

Ex Parte Endo Ex Parte Endo refers to a decision undertaken by the U.S. Supreme Court on 18th December 1944. The Supreme Court in their decision ruled that; despite the fact that the government of the U.S. had the rights to eliminate the Japanese ancestry out of the west coast during the Second World War, they had no right to continue detaining a citizen whom the government conceded devoted to the United States. This paper shall give details on Ex Parte Endo and the relationship it has on the Constitution. Endo, after her designation as the appellant, she became an American citizen whose ancestry belongs to Japanese. In 1942, she would be evacuated from California at Sacramento. In July, the same year, she filed a petition for a court order of habeas corpus in the United States’ District court. She made claims be discharged, and her liberty reinstated. Following a letter drafted on August 11, the year 1942, General De Witt gave an authorization to the authority of War Relocation to permit detainees to leave those areas. The authority and delegation conferred by the order of the executive No. 9102. The relocation authority would control over the egress and ingress of evacuees from the centers of relocation where Endo got confined. The war relocation authority program has three key features. I. There would be isolation of disloyal from the loyal evacuees. II. The centers of relocation could be safeguarded as interim residential places for evacuees. III. The sustained confinement of the disloyal and relocation of the devoted in selected communities. With regard to the war relocation authority, procedures for obtaining leave from centers of relocation could be established. An indefinite leave would be given to the applicant after an investigation could be made for security and public peace purposes. Endo made no appliance for indefinite leave. However, he applied for a leave clearance on 19th of February, 1943. During the month of July in 1943, the District Court denied the petition. A perfected appeal would be directed to the Circuit Court of Appeals in the month of August, 1943. A transfer to the Utah Relocation in the central from the Tule Lake Centre of relocation would be subjected to the appellant. It is at Utah in Topaz where Endo would be persistently detained (Bamford, 1983, p.41). On 18th December the year 1944, the Supreme Court made a unanimous ruling that stated Endo’s release from custody. Endo would be granted her liberty following her loyalty establishment (Donald, 1985, p. 28). Justice Murphy, in the ruling, stated that it could be unconstitutional to detain persons in the relocation centers, and from the Japanese ancestry despite their loyalty. It became unconstitutional resort that provoked inherent racism in the program of the entire evacuation. The commander of Military, Major Pratt, at that time, authorized the suspension of the orders of exclusion. The Japanese Americans detained would be then free and could go back to their homes situated in the West Coast. The ruling made by the Supreme Court regarding Endo’s detention created disturbing and dangerous precedents. A clear declaration of the martial law on the West Coast would be applied to all civil courts. This declaration could make the military or the president initiate a decision in their judgment in which; they can deny, suspend or ignore all its citizens’ rights following a national emergency. Concluding that Endo should be provided her liberty does not come to the issues underlying the Constitution. However, the power granted to the Relocation Authority to detain citizens under other classes, it does not have the right to subject conceded loyal citizens to the leave procedure. The NDAA (The National Defense Authorization) adopted in the recent past and justified into law by President Barack Obama, includes language that has substantiated the constitutional quest. These involve questions by the civil libertarians on the political left and right. The immense lengthy legislation associates with authorization routine for military payments by the pentagon. Some of the military spending includes items such as veterans’ benefits, weapons procurement, military pay, among others. Such legislations should be regularly passed if the military of the United States is to maintain its operations. In S. 1867, the senate version of the United States legislation, contains sections confined with detaining of folks under suspect of terrorist. These terror groups comprise individuals and organizations planning or engaging into hostile events against the United States. Such suspects can be detained and arrested indefinitely, without trial, without filing formal charges, until the hostilities come to an end. A version that came to pass ultimately in connection to the full congress stipulated that; there is no ending in sight to detention period. The questions could be; does the law consent the United States’ members in the armed forces to confine the American Citizens? What could turn out to those detained in the country, without the due process granted? The language in section 1031 of the bill remains unclear. The first paragraph of section 1031 states that: I. Generally, the congress affirms that the president has the authority to use the appropriate and necessary force pursuant to sanction the use of military force, which involves the power for the United States’ Armed Forces to detain the covered individuals. The covered persons include; first, people who authorized, committed, aided, or planned the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Secondly, an individual associated with forces that engage in warfare against the United States, even its coalition partners. II. Persons disposed under the law of war include; first, confinement under the law of war with no trial till the end of authorized hostilities by the granted powers for use of forces in the military. Secondly, the trial should be in accordance to title 10 under chapter 47A; the United States Code amended by the commission of the military under the Act of 2009. Thirdly, relocation for trial by a competent tribunal or different court having lawful jurisdiction. Lastly, transfer to detention or control of the person’s state of origin, or any new foreign entity. Section 1032 of the constitution is the next section that requires the force of the military to detain particular individuals falling under the designation of the act. The language under this Act is wide that citizens of the United States fall under its provisions. These citizens can be indefinitely detained, with no constitutional protection provisions in the U.S. 5th and 6th amendments within the constitution. In this case, there would be no due process, no trial by jury, speedy trial and habeas corpus rights. However, the law supporters, including various members of the congress, spot the additional language of this section. The law in this section could be articulated to guard the legitimate rights of citizens in the United States. The provisions in this section apply to the lawful aliens and the United Citizens in the following ways: I. The United States citizens, do not qualify detention in the military custody. II. The lawful resident aliens within the United States can not be subjected to detention on the basis of conduct occurring within the U.S., excluding the acceptable measures as per the United States’ Constitution. When the language of this section can be interpreted, it becomes clear that the United States citizens can not be exempted from detention without due process, but not required under the given provisions. The United States President could be the only person required to decide matters pertaining indefinite detention, without tried or formally charged. Empowering the United States President, or any other folk, such kind of authority above the American citizens could be something the U.S. Constitution framers for the Bill of Rights, would try to prohibit. Though, the constitution would be applicable during Pearl Harbor’s Japanese attack. During this event, the detention resulted from the executive orders that president Roosevelt D. Franklin authorized (Irons, 1983, p. 24). Numerous challenges following the detention orders surrounded the U.S. Supreme Court, even that of Endo. The court endorsed the right of the American Government to put curfews on the American Citizens of Japanese ancestry. The decisions included exclusion of the American Japanese from particular areas, and relocating them in camps of internment. These decisions could be considered later as a slip-up, and later overturned in the 1980’s (Roger, 1987, p. 45). In conclusion, Endo detention resulted into decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court to release her out of custody, clearly shows how powers should be well exercised among leaders. The provision within the United States Constitution providing powers to its president in accordance to detention decisions gives the law supporters an upper hand to amend the Constitution. References: Bamford, J. (1983). The Puzzle Palace: A report on America’s Most Secret Agency, revised Edition. New York: Penguin Books. Donald, C. E. (1985). Native American Aliens: Disloyalty and Renunciation of Citizenship by Japanese American during World War II. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Irons P. (1983). Justice at War: The Story of the Japanese-American Internment Cases. New York: Oxford University Press. Roger, D. (1987). Concentration Camps USA: Japanese Americans and World War II. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Read More