Answered

Westonci.ca is the premier destination for reliable answers to your questions, provided by a community of experts. Connect with a community of professionals ready to help you find accurate solutions to your questions quickly and efficiently. Our platform provides a seamless experience for finding reliable answers from a network of experienced professionals.

During World War II, Presidential Executive Order 9066 and congressional statutes gave the military authority to exclude citizens of Japanese ancestry from areas deemed critical to national defense and potentially vulnerable to espionage. [Fred Toyosaburo] Korematsu remained in San Leandro, California, and violated Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army. After his arrest and relocation, Korematsu appealed to the Supreme Court, citing that his internment was a violation of his basic rights as an American Citizen. The Supreme Court sided with the federal government in its decision. Source: Oyez.org Based on the scenario above, why does the Supreme Court decision in Korematsu reflect judicial restraint?

Sagot :

looringhighjump

Answer:

Korematsu v. the United States (1944) is an example of how the principle of judicial restraint allows courts to refuse to interfere with severe violations to the constitutional rights of minorities.  

Explanation:

While judicial restraint is necessary for the democratic political process, it also enables the majoritarian oppression of minorities, like the racial discrimination against Japanese Americans that the Supreme Court upheld in this case.

We appreciate your visit. Our platform is always here to offer accurate and reliable answers. Return anytime. We hope our answers were useful. Return anytime for more information and answers to any other questions you have. Find reliable answers at Westonci.ca. Visit us again for the latest updates and expert advice.