Important Historical Events & Facts – Survive with Will – Thoughtful Analysis & Perceptions

April 19 – High Incidence of Violence Historically

Will Hemingway — Thu, 19 Apr 2018 20:49:02 +0000

Extensive study and investigation of historical records dating back over 500 years of written history highlights a strange and troublingly high number of violent incidents which occurred on April 19^th.

On an April 19 in the 1980’s Ronald Reagan reported that you can’t change the system, it ends up changing you.

April 19 in History:

2013 - Boston Lock-down and Boston Marathon Bomb Suspects the Boston Lock-down started with the shelter-in-place requests for several Boston-area neighborhoods in and around the Watertown area early Friday morning and extended to the entire city around 8 a.m. ET.

Suspects in the Boston Marathon Bombings are identified as Kyrgyzstan-born Muslims Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, age 19, and his 28-year old brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev

1995 - The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK, was destroyed by a bomb. It was the worst bombing on U.S. territory. 168 people were killed including 19 children, and 500 were injured. Timothy McVeigh was found guilty of the bombing on June 2, 1997.

1994 - A Los Angeles jury awarded $3.8 million to Rodney King for violation of his civil rights.

1993 - The Branch-Davidian’s compound in Waco, TX, burned to the ground. It was the end of a 51-day standoff between the cult and U.S. federal agents. 86 people were killed including 17 children. Nine of the Branch Davidians escaped the fire. They used Methylene Chloride as a solvent to atomize CS particulate and release it into the Davidian Compound. Methylene Chloride is highly toxic. It is highly caustic, it strips paint and emits significant amounts of noxious vapors.

1989 - The battleship USS Iowa‘s number 2 turret explodes. 47 sailors were killed.

1989 - Central Park Attack on Jogger On the 19th approximately 30 teenage perpetrators committed several attacks, assaults, and robberies in the northernmost part of New York City's Central Park. Around the same time an attack on Trisha Meili occurred, who was jogging on her own on her usual path in Central Park shortly before 9 pm. She was raped and beaten almost to death, at 1:30 AM she was found naked, gagged, and tied up, covered in mud and blood. Five juveniles (called the "Central Park 5") were interviewed for hours about the crime and intimidated into confessions. Since no DNA evidence tied the suspects to the crime, the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the confessions. They were all found guilty but the convictions were overturned in 2002 after Matias Reyes, a convicted rapist and murderer, confessed to the crime and was linked to it with DNA evidence. The city was forced to pay out $41 million in damages.

1987 - U.S.S.R. performs underground nuclear test

1985 - U.S.S.R. performs nuclear test at Semipalitinsk, Eastern Kazakhstan U.S.S.R.

1983 - France performs nuclear test

1973 - U.S.S.R. performs nuclear test at Semipalitinsk, Eastern Kazakhstan U.S.S.R.

1972 - U.S. performs nuclear test at Nevada Test Site

1969 : Militant black students at Cornell Univ. use force to take over Willard Straight Hall demanding a black studies program, after a deal was reached with the administration the news showed students leaving the hall carrying rifles although they were never used.

1969 - Students Occupy Willard Straight Hall

1961 - Cuba Bay of Pigs April 17th 1,500 CIA-trained force of Cuban exiles invaded southern Cuba at the "Bay of Pigs" by the 19th 118 were killed and 1,202 are captured by Cuban forces. President Kennedy inherited the operation from US President Dwight D. Eisenhower and approved the operation but it has to be one of the worst planned and executed covert invasions in modern times poorly thought out, as Cuban and Soviet Forces knew almost to the day where and when the operation would occur.

1947 - French ship explodes in Texas City harbor, kills about 522

1945 - U.S. offensive against Shuri-barrier on Okinawa

1945 - U.S. aircraft carrier Franklin heavy damaged in Japanese air raid

1943 The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (Poland) began on April 19

1943 - The Warsaw Ghetto uprising against Nazi rule began. The Jews were able to fight off the Germans for 28 days. Nazi Panzer division ended by burning the resistance out at the standoff

1939 - Connecticut approved the Bill of Rights for the U.S. Constitution after 148 years.

1938 - General Francisco Franco declared victory in the Spanish Civil War.

1934 - Herbert Hoover violated Posse Comitias utilizing tanks, guns, and troops to run the protesters out the “Bonus protesters”. Herbert Hoover, Douglas MacArthur, George S. Patton were involved.

Bonus Army 17,000 veterans, 26,000 others on the first day 2 dead; 1,017 injured. The Army used 500 infantry men, 500 cavalry, 6 Renault FT tanks, 800 policemen.

1933 - U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued a proclamation that removed the U.S. from the gold standard.

1928 - The combined nationalist Northern Armies under Chiang continue drive onto Peking as part of the Civil war continuing in China.

1928 - China Civil War

1909 Joan of Arc receives beatification by the Roman Catholic Church

1874 - Barracks on Alcatraz Island destroyed in fire

1861 - U.S. President Lincoln ordered a blockade of Confederate ports.

1861 - The Baltimore riots resulted in four Union soldiers and nine civilians killed.

1782 - The Netherlands recognized the new United States.

1775 - The American Revolution began as fighting broke out at Lexington, MA. British moved to take the people’s muskets and cannons at Lexington. The American Revolution begins with the Battles of Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts. British regulars are chased back into Boston and besieged. “The shot heard round the world” ignites a full-scale revolt in the America’s 13 colonies.

1775 - American Revolution begins - Lexington Common, shot "heard round the world"

1770 - Captain James Cook discovered New South Wales, Australia. Cook originally named the land Point Hicks.

1764 - The English Parliament banned the American colonies from printing paper money.

1689 - Residents of Boston oust their governor, Edmond Andros.

1587 - On this day in history sir Frances Drake sails into Cadiz Spain & sinks Spanish fleet

List of Major Terror Attacks 1968 – 2002

Will Hemingway — Wed, 27 Dec 2017 04:10:32 +0000

Date	Location	Target	Type Act	Victim(s) & Damage	Perpetrators
7/23/1968	Rome	El Al aircraft	Hijacking		Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – Three members
11/22/1968	Jerusalem, Israel	Open market shoppers	Bombing	12 killed
2/18/1969	Zurich Switzerland	El Al aircraft	Armed Assault	Copilot killed
2/21/1969	Jerusalem		Bomb blast	killed and eight injured
8/29/1969		TWA 707 aircraft	Hijacking to Damascus, Syria		Palestinian terrorist
9/29/1969	Flying from Rome to Lodi Italy	TWA aircraft	Hijacking to Damascus, Syria
11/27/1969	Athens, Greece	El Al office	Armed Assault	Innocent bystanders were killed
2/10/1970	Munich airport	Airport passenger transfer bus	Armed Assault		Palestinian terrorist
2/21/1970	Flight to Israel	Swissair aircraft	Bomb – in flight explosion		Palestinian terrorists
4/21/1970	Philippines	Philippines aircraft	Bomb	36 aboard killed
5/22/1970	Israeli		Armed Assault	Eight Israeli school children killed	Arab terrorist
9/6/1970	El Al plane Jordanian desert.	4 El Al aircraft	Hijacking to Jordanian Desert 3 succeeded, 1 thwarted
1/26/1972		Yugoslav aircraft	Bomb – in flight explosion	people killed (all but one passengeron board)
5/30/1972		Lod airport	Armed Assault	24 people killed	Palestinians terrorist – Japanese terrorist recruited by Palestinians
7/21/1972	Downtown Belfast		22 bombs exploded	11 people killed
9/5/1972	Olympic games in Munich	Isreali atheletes at the Olympic Games	Armed Assault	Eleven members of the Israeli Olympic team killed	Black September an arm of the PLO led by Yasser Arafat
2/23/1973	Over the Sinai desert	Libyan aircraft	Israel shoots down fearing it was a flying bomb		Libya (Israeli self defense?)
3/8/1973	London, England		2 IRA bombs	1 person killed, 200 injured	IRA
8/5/1973		TWA aircraft	Armed Assault	5 people killed	Libyan terrorist group
9/8/1974	flying from Athens to Rome	TWA aircraft	Bomb – in flight explosion	85 passengers killed (all on-board)	Libyan terrorist group
11/21/1974	Birmingham England		Series of bombs	21 people killed	IRA
9/30/1975		Hungarian aircraft	Bomb – in flight explosion	64 people killed (all on board)
1/1/1976		Lebanese aircraft	Bomb – in flight explosion	82 people killed (all on board)
6/24/1976		Air France aircraft	Hijacked to Uganda	Israeli later stages a daring rescue mission to free the hostages.
3/12/1978		Israeli bus	Armed Assault	37 Israeli people killed	Palestinian terrorists
11/04/1979	Tehran Iran	United States of America Embassy	Armed Assault / Abduction	52 USA citizens are held hostage for 444 days	Iran A group of Iranian students who were angry at the United States attacked and seized its embassy in Tehran, Iran. They were supported by the countries leader, Ayatollah Khomeini.
4/19/1981	Davao Philippines		Armed Assault	13 people killed and 177 injured
07/18/1982	Beirut, Lebanon	United States of America Citizens	Armed Assault / Abduction / Torture / Killing the first of a decade-long campaign of kidnappings	18 USA citizens would be held hostage during the campaign, 3 USA citizens would be murdered. Abduction, torture and killing of U.S. marine Richard Higgins, his body was shown hanging in a videotape made by the terrorists. David Dodge, president of the American University of Beirut, is kidnapped by guerrillas later released. William Buckley, a U.S. Embassy political officer, kidnapped and eventually murdered.	Organization of the Oppressed on Earth Intelligence reports have suggested that abduction was actually carried out by Iranian-backed Hezbollah (Party of God) guerrillas operating in Lebanon. Experts believe that Hezbollah used the term “Organization of the Oppressed on Earth” as a code name. Hezbollah has denied involvement in both the kidnappings and the killings.
8/6/1982	Paris, France	kosher restaurant	Armed Assault	8 People killed
4/18/1983	Beirut, Lebanon	United States of America Embassy	Armed Assault	83 people killed
9/29/1983		Gulf Air aircraft	Bomb – in flight explosion	166 people killed (all on board)	Islamic Jihad ( controlled by Syria)
Beirut, Lebanon	United States of America Military Personnel	Truck bomb	241 US Marines killed
9/20/1984	Beirut, Lebanon	United States of America Embassy	Truck bomb	15 people killed
6/23/1985		Air India 747 aircraft	Bomb – in flight explosion	345 people killed (all on board)	Sikh terrorist
10/7/1985		Italian Cruise ship the Achillo Laura	Hijacking		Palestinian terrorists
9/5/1986		Pan Am aircraft	Hijacking	20 people are killed	Palestinian terrorists
12/21/1988	Lockerbie Scotland	Pan Am flight 103 aircraft	Bomb – in flight explosion	259 people killed (all on board)	Libyan terrorist group
3/17/1992	Buenos Aires	Israeli embassy	Bomb	29 people killed	Argentine Police Department was ruled complicit by their court
2/26/1993	World Trade Center New York City, NY USA		Bomb – explodes in the basement	6 people are killed 1,000 injured	Al Queda
7/27/1993	Milan Italy		Car bomb	5 people killed
7/18/1994	Buenos Aires		Bomb	26 people killed
		Seven-story building that housed a Jewish cultural center and was also used by a group of researchers studying Argentinean government files on Nazi war-criminals that had entered Argentina after World War II.		150 people injured
3/20/1995	Tokyo, Japan	Rail station / Subway	Nerve gas is released	12 people killed
4/19/1995	Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA	Alfred P Murrah Federal office building	Bomb	168 people killed
8/7/1998	Mairobi Kenya	United States of America Embassy	Bomb
Dar es Salamm Tanzania		United States of America Embassy	Bomb
8/2001	Eagon, MN USA		Accused of being the intended 20th hijacker on 9/11		Al Queda – USA citizen Zacarias Moussaoui
9/2001	Detroit & Dearborn, MI	United States of America Economy	Accused of being part of a sleeper operational combat cell. Economic terrorism, recruit and train terrorists, set up safe houses and gather intelligence about terror targets.		Militant Islamic movement, allied with al Qaeda. Karim Koubriti, Ahmed Hannan, Farouk Ali-Haimoud and Abdel-Ilah Elmardoudi (Abdella)
9/11/2001	New York City, NY USA	World Trade Center	Aircraft hijacked and flown into building	Over 3000 people killed	Al Queda
Fairfax, VA USA	Pentagon	168 ???	Aircraft hijacked and flown into building		Al Queda
12/2001	Peoria, IL		Accused of falsely denying his contacts with Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, one of the 9/11 organizers based in the United Arab Emirates		Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri Accomplice of Al Queda 9/11 organizers
12/2001	Ann Arbor, MI		Accused of funneling money to terrorists via the Global Relief Foundation		Rabih Haddad Global Relief Foundation
3/2002	Northern VA & GA		Money laundering and funding terrorist organizations	15 warrants executed against several businesses	MarJac Investments, Mar-Jac Poultry, Reston Investments, SAAR Foundation, Safa Trust and Sterling Management Group; nonprofit organizations (including the Fiqh Council of North America, Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences, International Institute of Islamic Thought, International Islamic Relief Organization and Muslim World League), and four homes, all connected to M. Yaqub Mizra, accused of laundering money for al Qaeda or other terrorist groups.
4/2002	Justice, IL		Money laundering and funding terrorist organizations		Enaam Arnaout, accused of funneling money to al Qaeda and other terrorist organization
4/2002	New York	New York City landmarks	Accused of passing messages between Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (serving a life sentence for his part in an attempt to blow up New York City landmarks) and his followers		Mohammed Yousry, Ahmed Abdel Sattar and Yassir Al-Sirri aiding Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman





10/11/20 02		United States of America Embassy and French Embassy	Suicide bomber	A man wearing a vest with explosives set off a metal detector at a crowded beachfront cafe, fled and then was captured by U.S. Embassy guards before he could detonate the device	Palestinian terrorists

Posse Comitatus

Will Hemingway — Sun, 10 Dec 2017 06:33:56 +0000

Posse Comitatus

United States Code

TITLE 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I – CRIMES

CHAPTER 67 – MILITARY AND NAVY

Sec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Explanatory Note:

This law was created to assure that the political leaders of the USA cannot utilize the US Military to enforce laws or make acts of aggression upon American Citizens on the soil of the USA.

Many people have the misconception that the posse comitatus is an absolute ban of the use of US military on home soil against American Citizens. In fact it is not. If you have any question all that you have to is read the one phrase; in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.

Useful Info Landmark Legal Cases Korematsu v United States – 1946

Will Hemingway — Fri, 15 Jan 2016 14:08:22 +0000

TOYOSABURO KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES

323 U.S. 214 (1944)

Commentary –

Korematsu v. United States upheld the conviction of Frank Korematsu for defying an order to be interned with other Japanese-Americans during World War II.

This ruling placed the security of the United States over individual rights and again has entered the political landscape with the Patriot Act in the early 2000’s.

Full text of ruling is below:

TOYOSABURO KOREMATSU

UNITED STATES.

No. 22.

Argued Oct. 11, 12, 1944.

Decided Dec. 18, 1944.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 12, 1945

See 324 U.S. 885, 65 S.Ct. 674. [323 U.S. 214, 215] Mr. Wayne M. Collins, of San Francisco, Cal., and Mr. Charles A. Horsky, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Mr. Charles Fahy, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioner, an American citizen of Japanese descent, was convicted in a federal district court for remaining in San Leandro, California, a ‘Military Area’, contrary to Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the Commanding General [323 U.S. 214, 216] of the Western Command, U.S. Army, which directed that after May 9, 1942, all persons of Japanese ancestry should be excluded from that area. No question was raised as to petitioner’s loyalty to the United States. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed,1 and the importance of the constitutional question involved caused us to grant certiorari.

It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can.

In the instant case prosecution of the petitioner was begun by information charging violation of an Act of Congress, of March 21, 1942, 56 Stat. 173, 18 U.S.C.A. 97a, which provides that

‘… whoever shall enter, remain in, leave, or commit any act in any military area or military zone prescribed, under the authority of an Executive order of the President, by the Secretary of War, or by any military commander designated by the Secretary of War, contrary to the restrictions applicable to any such area or zone or contrary to the order of the Secretary of War or any such military commander, shall, if it appears that he knew or should have known of the existence and extent of the restrictions or order and that his act was in violation thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be liable to a fine of not to exceed $5,000 or to imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, for each offense.’

Exclusion Order No. 34, which the petitioner knowingly and admittedly violated was one of a number of military orders and proclamations, all of which were sub- [323 U.S. 214, 217] stantially based upon Executive Order No. 9066, 7 Fed.Reg. 1407. That order, issued after we were at war with Japan, declared that ‘the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities. …’

One of the series of orders and proclamations, a curfew order, which like the exclusion order here was promulgated pursuant to Executive Order 9066, subjected all persons of Japanese ancestry in prescribed West Coast military areas to remain in their residences from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. As is the case with the exclusion order here, that prior curfew order was designed as a ‘protection against espionage and against sabotage.’ In Kiyoshi Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, we sustained a conviction obtained for violation of the curfew order. The Hirabayashi conviction and this one thus rest on the same 1942 Congressional Act and the same basic executive and military orders, all of which orders were aimed at the twin dangers of espionage and sabotage.

The 1942 Act was attacked in the Hirabayashi case as an unconstitutional delegation of power; it was contended that the curfew order and other orders on which it rested were beyond the war powers of the Congress, the military authorities and of the President, as Commander in Chief of the Army; and finally that to apply the curfew order against none but citizens of Japanese ancestry amounted to a constitutionally prohibited discrimination solely on account of race. To these questions, we gave the serious consideration which their importance justified. We upheld the curfew order as an exercise of the power of the government to take steps necessary to prevent espionage and sabotage in an area threatened by Japanese attack.

In the light of the principles we announced in the Hirabayashi case, we are unable to conclude that it was beyond the war power of Congress and the Executive to exclude [323 U.S. 214, 218] those of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast war area at the time they did. True, exclusion from the area in which one’s home is located is a far greater deprivation than constant confinement to the home from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. Nothing short of apprehension by the proper military authorities of the gravest imminent danger to the public safety can constitutionally justify either. But exclusion from a threatened area, no less than curfew, has a definite and close relationship to the prevention of espionage and sabotage. The military authorities, charged with the primary responsibility of defending our shores, concluded that curfew provided inadequate protection and ordered exclusion. They did so, as pointed out in our Hirabayashi opinion, in accordance with Congressional authority to the military to say who should, and who should not, remain in the threatened areas.

In this case the petitioner challenges the assumptions upon which we rested our conclusions in the Hirabayashi case. He also urges that by May 1942, when Order No. 34 was promulgated, all danger of Japanese invasion of the West Coast had disappeared. After careful consideration of these contentions we are compelled to reject them.

Here, as in the Hirabayashi case, supra, 320 U.S. at page 99, 63 S.Ct. at page 1385, ‘… we cannot reject as unfounded the judgment of the military authorities and of Congress that there were disloyal members of that population, whose number and strength could not be precisely and quickly ascertained. We cannot say that the war-making branches of the Government did not have ground for believing that in a critical hour such persons could not readily be isolated and separately dealt with, and constituted a menace to the national defense and safety, which demanded that prompt and adequate measures be taken to guard against it.’

Like curfew, exclusion of those of Japanese origin was deemed necessary because of the presence of an unascertained number of disloyal members of the group, most of [323 U.S. 214, 219] whom we have no doubt were loyal to this country. It was because we could not reject the finding of the military authorities that it was impossible to bring about an immediate segregation of the disloyal from the loyal that we sustained the validity of the curfew order as applying to the whole group. In the instant case, temporary exclusion of the entire group was rested by the military on the same ground. The judgment that exclusion of the whole group was for the same reason a military imperative answers the contention that the exclusion was in the nature of group punishment based on antagonism to those of Japanese origin. That there were members of the group who retained loyalties to Japan has been confirmed by investigations made subsequent to the exclusion. Approximately five thousand American citizens of Japanese ancestry refused to swear unqualified allegiance to the United States and to renounce allegiance to the Japanese Emperor, and several thousand evacuees requested repatriation to Japan. 2

We uphold the exclusion order as of the time it was made and when the petitioner violated it. Cf. Chastleton Corporation v. Sinclair, 264 U.S. 543, 547, 44 S.Ct. 405, 406; Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135, 154, 155 S., 41 S.Ct. 458, 459, 16 A.L.R. 165. In doing so, we are not unmindful of the hardships imposed by it upon a large group of American citizens. Cf. Ex parte Kumezo Kawato, 317 U.S. 69, 73, 63 S.Ct. 115, 117. But hardships are part of war, and war is an aggregation of hardships. All citizens alike, both in and out of uniform, feel the impact of war in greater or lesser measure. Citizenship has its responsibilities as well as its privileges, and in time of war the burden is always heavier. Compulsory [323 U.S. 214, 220] exclusion of large groups of citizens from their homes, except under circumstances of direst emergency and peril, is inconsistent with our basic governmental institutions. But when under conditions of modern warfare our shores are threatened by hostile forces, the power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger.

It is argued that on May 30, 1942, the date the petitioner was charged with remaining in the prohibited area, there were conflicting orders outstanding, forbidding him both to leave the area and to remain there. Of course, a person cannot be convicted for doing the very thing which it is a crime to fail to do. But the outstanding orders here contained no such contradictory commands.

There was an order issued March 27, 1942, which prohibited petitioner and others of Japanese ancestry from leaving the area, but its effect was specifically limited in time ‘until and to the extent that a future proclamation or order should so permit or direct.’ 7 Fed.Reg. 2601. That ‘future order’, the one for violation of which petitioner was convicted, was issued May 3, 1942, and it did ‘direct’ exclusion from the area of all persons of Japanese ancestry, before 12 o’clock noon, May 9; furthermore it contained a warning that all such persons found in the prohibited area would be liable to punishment under the March 21, 1942 Act of Congress. Consequently, the only order in effect touching the petitioner’s being in the area on May 30, 1942, the date specified in the information against him, was the May 3 order which prohibited his remaining there, and it was that same order, which he stipulated in his trial that he had violated, knowing of its existence. There is therefore no basis for the argument that on May 30, 1942, he was subject to punishment, under the March 27 and May 3rd orders, whether he remained in or left the area.

It does appear, however, that on May 9, the effective date of the exclusion order, the military authorities had [323 U.S. 214, 221] already determined that the evacuation should be effected by assembling together and placing under guard all those of Japanese ancestry, at central points, designated as ‘assembly centers’, in order ‘to insure the orderly evacuation and resettlement of Japanese voluntarily migrating from military area No. 1 to restrict and regulate such migration.’ Public Proclamation No. 4, 7 Fed.Reg. 2601. And on May 19, 1942, elevan days before the time petitioner was charged with unlawfully remaining in the area, Civilian Restrictive Order No. 1, 8 Fed.Reg. 982, provided for detention of those of Japanese ancestry in assembly or relocation centers. It is now argued that the validity of the exclusion order cannot be considered apart from the orders requiring him, after departure from the area, to report and to remain in an assembly or relocation center. The contention is that we must treat these separate orders as one and inseparable; that, for this reason, if detention in the assembly or relocation center would have illegally deprived the petitioner of his liberty, the exclusion order and his conviction under it cannot stand.

We are thus being asked to pass at this time upon the whole subsequent detention program in both assembly and relocation centers, although the only issues framed at the trial related to petitioner’s remaining in the prohibited area in violation of the exclusion order. Had petitioner here left the prohibited area and gone to an assembly center we cannot say either as a matter of fact or law, that his presence in that center would have resulted in his detention in a relocation center. Some who did report to the assembly center were not sent to relocation centersBut were released upon condition that they remain outside the prohibited zone until the military orders were modified or lifted. This illustrates that they pose different problems and may be governed by different principles. The lawfulness of one does not necessarily determine the lawfulness of the others. This is made clear [323 U.S. 214, 222] when we analyze the requirements of the separate provisions of the separate orders. These separate requirements were that those of Japanese ancestry (1) depart from the area; (2) report to and temporarily remain in an assembly center; (3) go under military control to a relocation center there to remain for an indeterminate period until released conditionally or unconditionally by the military authorities. Each of these requirements, it will be noted, imposed distinct duties in connection with the separate steps in a complete evacuation program. Had Congress directly incorporated into one Act the language of these separate orders, and provided sanctions for their violations, disobedience of any one would have constituted a separate offense. Cf. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182. There is no reason why violations of these orders, insofar as they were promulgated pursuant to congressional enactment, should not be treated as separate offenses.

The Endo case (Ex parte Mitsuye Endo) 323 U.S. 283, 65 S.Ct. 208, graphically illustrates the difference between the validity of an order to exclude and the validity of a detention order after exclusion has been effected.

Since the petitioner has not been convicted of failing to report or to remain in an assembly or relocation center, we cannot in this case determine the validity of those separate provisions of the order. It is sufficient here for us to pass upon the order which petitioner violated. To do more would be to go beyond the issues raised, and to decide momentous questions not contained within the framework of the pleadings or the evidence in this case. It will be time enough to decide the serious constitutional issues which petitioner seeks to raise when an assembly or relocation order is applied or is certain to be applied to him, and we have its terms before us.

Some of the members of the Court are of the view that evacuation and detention in an Assembly Center were inseparable. After May 3, 1942, the date of Exclusion [323 U.S. 214, 223] Order No. 34, Korematsu was under compulsion to leave the area not as he would choose but via an Assembly Center. The Assembly Center was conceived as a part of the machinery for group evacuation. The power to exclude includes the power to do it by force if necessary. And any forcible measure must necessarily entail some degree of detention or restraint whatever method of removal is selected. But whichever view is taken, it results in holding that the order under which petitioner was convicted was valid.

It is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. Our task would be simple, our duty clear, were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of racial prejudice. Regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers-and we deem it unjustifiable to call them concentration camps with all the ugly connotations that term implies-we are dealing specifically with nothing but an exclusion order. To cast this case into outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue. Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders-as inevitably it must-determined that they should have the power to do just this. There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for [323 U.S. 214, 224] action was great, and time was short. We cannot-by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight-now say that at that time these actions were unjustified.

AFFIRMED.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, concurring.

According to my reading of Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34, it was an offense for Korematsu to be found in Military Area No. 1, the territory wherein he was previously living, except within the bounds of the established Assembly Center of that area. Even though the various orders issued by General DeWitt be deemed a comprehensive code of instructions, their tenor is clear and not contradictory. They put upon Korematsu the obligation to leave Military Area No. 1, but only by the method prescribed in the instructions, i.e., by reporting to the Assembly Center. I am unable to see how the legal considerations that led to the decision in Kiyoshi Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, fail to sustain the military order which made the conduct now in controversy a crime. And so I join in the opinion of the Court, but should like to add a few words of my own.

The provisions of the Constitution which confer on the Congress and the President powers to enable this country to wage war are as much part of the Constitution as provisions looking to a nation at peace. And we have had recent occasion to quote approvingly the statement of former Chief Justice Hughes that the war power of the Government is ‘the power to wage war successfully.’ Hirabayashi v. United States, supra, 320 U.S. at page 93, 63 S.Ct. at page 1382 and see Home Bldg. & L. Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 426, 54 S.Ct. 231, 235, 88 A.L.R. 1481. Therefore, the validity of action under the war power must be judged wholly in the context of war. That action is not to be stigmatized as lawless because like action in times of peace would be lawless. To talk about a military order that expresses an allowable judgment of war needs by those entrusted with the duty of conducting war as ‘an [323 U.S. 214, 225] unconstitutional order’ is to suffuse a part of the Constitution with an atmosphere of unconstitutionality. The respective spheres of action of military authorities and of judges are of course very different. But within their sphere, military authorities are no more outside the bounds of obedience to the Constitution than are judges within theirs. ‘The war power of the United States, like its other powers … is subject to applicable constitutional limitations’, Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries, Co., 251 U.S. 146, 156, 40 S.Ct. 106, 108. To recognize that military orders are ‘reasonably expedient military precautions’ in time of war and yet to deny them constitutional legitimacy makes of the Constitution an instrument for dialetic subtleties not reasonably to be attributed to the hard-headed Framers, of whom a majority had had actual participation in war. If a military order such as that under review does not transcend the means appropriate for conducting war, such action by the military is as constitutional as would be any authorized action by the Interstate Commerce Commission within the limits of the constitutional power to regulate commerce. And being an exercise of the war power explicitly granted by the Constitution for safeguarding the national life by prosecuting war effectively, I find nothing in the Constitution which denies to Congress the power to enforce such a valid military order by making its violation an offense triable in the civil courts. Compare Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 14 S.Ct. 1125; Id., 155 U.S. 3, 15 S.Ct. 19, and Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U.S. 177, 30 S.Ct. 356. To find that theConstitution does not forbid the military measures now complained of does not carry with it approval of that which Congress and the Executive did. That is their business, not ours.

Mr. Justice ROBERTS.

I dissent, because I think the indisputable facts exhibit a clear violation of Constitutional rights.

This is not a case of keeping people off the streets at night as was Kiyoshi Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, [323 U.S. 214, 226] nor a case of temporary exclusion of a citizen from an area for his own safety or that of the community, nor a case of offering him an opportunity to go temporarily out of an area where his presence might cause danger to himself or to his fellows. On the contrary, it is the case of convicting a citizen as a punishment for not submitting to imprisonment in a concentration camp, based on his ancestry, and solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. If this be a correct statement of the facts disclosed by this record, and facts of which we take judicial notice, I need hardly labor the conclusion that Constitutional rights have been violated.

The Government’s argument, and the opinion of the court, in my judgment, erroneously divide that which is single and indivisible and thus make the case appear as if the petitioner violated a Military Order, sanctioned by Act of Congress, which excluded him from his home, by refusing voluntarily to leave and, so, knowingly and intentionally, defying the order and the Act of Congress.

The petitioner, a resident of San Leandro, Alameda County, California, is a native of the United States of Japanese ancestry who, according to the uncontradicted evidence, is a loyal citizen of the nation.

A chronological recitation of events will make it plain that the petitioner’s supposed offense did not, in truth, consist in his refusal voluntarily to leave the area which included his home in obedience to the order excluding him therefrom. Critical attention must be given to the dates and sequence of events.

December 8, 1941, the United States declared war on Japan.

February 19, 1942, the President issued Executive Order No. 9066,1 which, after stating the reason for issuing the [323 U.S. 214, 227] order as ‘protection against espionage and against sabotage to national- defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities’, provided that certain Military Commanders might, in their discretion, ‘prescribe military areas’ and define their extent, ‘from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions’ the ‘Military Commander may impose in his discretion.’

February 20, 1942, Lieutenant General DeWitt was designated Military Commander of the Western Defense Command embracing the westernmost states of the Union,-about one-fourth of the total area of the nation.

March 2, 1942, General DeWitt promulgated Public Proclamation No. 1,2 which recites that the entire Pacific Coast is ‘particularly subject to attack, to attempted invasion … and, in connection therewith, is subject to espionage and acts of sabotage’. It states that ‘as a matter of military necessity’ certain military areas and zones are established known as Military Areas Nos. 1 and 2. It adds that ‘Such persons or classes of persons as the situation may require’ will, by subsequent orders, ‘be excluded from all of Military Area No. 1’ and from certain zones in Military Area No. 2. Subsequent proclamations were made which, together with Proclamation No. 1, included in such areas and zones all of California, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Utah, and the southern portion of Arizona. The orders required that if any person of Japanese, German or Italian ancestry residing in Area No. 1 desired to change his habitual residence he must execute and deliver to the authorities a Change of Residence Notice.

San Leandro, the city of petitioner’s residence, lies in Military Area No. 1. [323 U.S. 214, 228] On March 2, 1942, the petitioner, therefore, had notice that, by Executive Order, the President, to prevent espionage and sabotage, had authorized the Military to exclude him from certain areas and to prevent his entering or leaving certain areas without permission. He was on notice that his home city had been included, by Military Order, in Area No. 1, and he was on notice further that, at sometime in the future, the Military Commander would make an order for the exclusion of certain persons, not described or classified, from various zones including that in which he lived.

March 21, 1942, Congress enacted3 that anyone who knowingly ‘shall enter, remain in, leave, or commit any act in any military area or military zone prescribed … by any military commander … contrary to the restrictions applicable to any such area or zone or contrary to the order of … any such military commander’ shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. This is the Act under which the petitioner was charged.

March 24, 1942, General DeWitt instituted the curfew for certain areas within his command, by an order the validity of which was sustained in Hirabayashi v. United States, supra.

March 24, 1942, General DeWitt began to issue a series of exclusion orders relating to specified areas.

March 27, 1942, by Proclamation No. 4,4 the General recited that ‘it is necessary, in order to provide for the welfare and to insure the orderly evacuation and resettlement of Japanese voluntarily migrating from Military Area No. 1 to restrict and regulate such migration’; and ordered that, as of March 29, 1942, ‘all alien Japanese and persons of Japanese ancestry who are within the limits of Military Area No. 1, be and they are hereby [323 U.S. 214, 229] prohibited from leaving that area for any purpose until and to the extent that a future proclamation or order of this headquarters shall so permit or direct.’ 5

No order had been made excluding the petitioner from the area in which he lived. By Proclamation No. 4 he was, after March 29, 1942, confined to the limits of Area No. 1. If the Executive Order No. 9066 and the Act of Congress meant what they said, to leave that area, in the face of Proclamation No. 4, would be to commit a misdemeanor.

May 3, 1942, General DeWitt issued Civilian Exclusion Order No. 346 providing that, after 12 o’clock May 8, 1942, all persons of Japanese ancestry, both alien and non-alien, were to be excluded from a described portion of Military Area No. 1, which included the County of Alameda, California. The order required a responsible member of each family and each individual living alone to report, at a time set, at a Civil Control Station for instructions to go to an Assembly Center, and added that any person failing to comply with the provisions of the order who was found in the described area after the date set would be liable to prosecution under the Act of March 21, 1942, supra. It is important to note that the order, by its express terms, had no application to persons within the bounds ‘of an established Assembly Center pursuant to instructions from this Headquarters ….’ The obvious purpose of the orders made, taken together, was to drive all citizens of Japanese ancestry into Assembly Centers within the zones of their residence, under pain of criminal prosecution. [323 U.S. 214, 230] The predicament in which the petitioner thus found himself was this: He was forbidden, by Military Order, to leave the zone in which he lived; he was forbidden, by Military Order, after a date fixed, to be found within that zone unless he were in an Assembly Center located in that zone. General DeWitt’s report to the Secretary of War concerning the programme of evacuation and relocation of Japanese makes it entirely clear, if it were necessary to refer to that document,-and, in the light of the above recitation, I think it is not,-that an Assembly Center was a euphemism for a prison. No person within such a center was permitted to leave except by Military Order.

In the dilemma that he dare not remain in his home, or voluntarily leave the area, without incurring criminal penalties, and that the only way he could avoid punishment was to go to an Assembly Center and submit himself to military imprisonment, the petitioner did nothing.

June 12, 1942, an Information was filed in the District Court for Northern California charging a violation of the Act of March 21, 1942, in that petitioner had knowingly remained within the area covered by Exclusion Order No. 34. A demurrer to the information having been overruled, the petitioner was tried under a plea of not guilty and convicted. Sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for five years. We know, however, in the light of the foregoing recitation, that he was at once taken into military custody and lodged in an Assembly Center. We further know that, on March 18, 1942, the President had promulgated Executive Order No. 91027 establishing the War Relocation Authority under which so-called Relocation Centers, a enphemism for concentration camps, were established pursuant to cooperation between the military authorities of the Western Defense Command and the Relocation Authority, and that the petitioner has [323 U.S. 214, 231] been confined either in an Assembly Center, within the zone in which he had lived or has been removed to a Relocation Center where, as the facts disclosed in Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 65 S.Ct. 208, demonstrate, he was illegally held in custody.

The Government has argued this case as if the only order outstanding at the time the petitioner was arrested and informed against was Exclusion Order No. 34 ordering him to leave the area in which he resided, which was the basis of the information against him. That argument has evidently been effective. The opinion refers to the Hirabayashi case, supra, to show that this court has sustained the validity of a curfew order in an emergency. The argument then is that exclusion from a given area of danger, while somewhat more sweeping than a curfew regulation, is of the same nature,-a temporary expedient made necessary by a sudden emergency. This, I think, is a substitution of an hypothetical case for the case actually before the court. I might agree with the court’s disposition of the hypothetical case. 8 The liberty of every American citizen freely to come and to go must frequently, in the face of sudden danger, be temporarily limited or suspended. The civil authorities must often resort to the expedient of excluding citizens temporarily from a locality. The drawing of fire lines in the case of a conflagration, the removal of persons from the area where a pestilence has broken out, are familiar examples. If the exclusion worked by Exclusion Order No. 34 were of that nature the Hirabayashi case would be authority for sustaining it. [323 U.S. 214, 232] But the facts above recited, and those set forth in Ex parte Metsuye Endo, supra, show that the exclusion was but a part of an over-all plan for forceable detention. This case cannot, therefore, be decided on any such narrow ground as the possible validity of a Temporary Exclusion Order under which the residents of an area are given an opportunity to leave and go elsewhere in their native land outside the boundaries of a military area. To make the case turn on any such assumption is to shut our eyes to reality.

As I have said above, the petitioner, prior to his arrest, was faced with two diametrically contradictory orders given sanction by the Act of Congress of March 21, 1942. The earlier of those orders made him a criminal if he left the zone in which he resided; the later made him a criminal if he did not leave.

I had supposed that if a citizen was constrained by two laws, or two orders having the force of law, and obedience to one would violate the other, to punish him for violation of either would deny him due process of law. And I had supposed that under these circumstances a conviction for violating one of the orders could not stand.

We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that had the petitioner attempted to violate Proclamation No. 4 and leave the military area in which he lived he would have been arrested and tried and convicted for violation of Proclamation No. 4. The two conflicting orders, one which commanded him to stay and the other which commanded him to go, were nothing but a cleverly devised trap to accomplish the real purpose of the military authority, which was to lock him up in a concentration camp. The only course by which the petitioner could avoid arrest and prosecution was to go to that camp according to instructions to be given him when he reported at a Civil Control Center. We know that is the fact. Why should we set up a figmentary and artificial situation instead of addressing ourselves to the actualities of the case? [323 U.S. 214, 233] These stark realities are met by the suggestion that it is lawful to compel an American citizen to submit to illegal imprisonment on the assumption that he might, after going to the Assembly Center, apply for his discharge by suing out a writ of habeas corpus, as was done in the Endo case, supra. The answer, of course, is that where he was subject to two conflicting laws he was not bound, in order to escape violation of one of the other, to surrender his liberty for any period. Nor will it do to say that the detention was a necessary part of the process of evacuation, and so we are here concerned only with the validity of the latter.

Again it is a new doctrine of constitutional law that one indicted for disobedience to an unconstitutional statute may not defend on the ground of the invalidity of the statute but must obey it though he knows it is no law and, after he has suffered the disgrace of conviction and lost his liberty by sentence, then, and not before, seek, from within prison walls, to test the validity of the law.

Moreover, it is beside the point to rest decision in part on the fact that the petitioner, for his own reasons, wished to remain in his home. If, as is the fact he was constrained so to do, it is indeed a narrow application of constitutional rights to ignore the order which constrained him, in order to sustain his conviction for violation of another contradictory order.

I would reverse the judgment of conviction.

Mr. Justice MURPHY, dissenting.

This exclusion of ‘all persons of Japanese ancestry, both alien and non-alien,’ from the Pacific Coast area on a plea of military necessity in the absence of martial law ought not to be approved. Such exclusion goes over ‘the very brink of constitutional power’ and falls into the ugly abyss of racism.

In dealing with matters relating to the prosecution and progress of a war, we must accord great respect and con- [323 U.S. 214, 234] sideration to the judgments of the military authorities who are on the scene and who have full knowledge of the military facts. The scope of their discretion must, as a matter of necessity and common sense, be wide. And their judgments ought not to be overruled lightly by those whose training and duties ill-equip them to deal intelligently with matters so vital to the physical security of the nation.

At the same time, however, it is essential that there be definite limits to military discretion, especially where martial law has not been declared. Individuals must not be left impoverished of their constitutional rights on a plea of military necessity that has neither substance nor support. Thus, like other claims conflicting with the asserted constitutional rights of the individual, the military claim must subject itself to the judicial process of having its reasonableness determined and its conflicts with other interests reconciled. ‘What are the allowable limits of military discretion, and whether or not they have been overstepped in a particular case, are judicial questions.’ Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 401, 53 S.Ct. 190, 196.

The judicial test of whether the Government, on a plea of military necessity, can validly deprive an individual of any of his constitutional rights is whether the deprivation is reasonably related to a public danger that is so ‘immediate, imminent, and impending’ as not to admit of delay and not to permit the intervention of ordinary constitutional processes to alleviate the danger. United States v. Russell, 13 Wall. 623, 627, 628; Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 How. 115, 134, 135; Raymond v. Thomas, 91 U.S. 712, 716. Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34, banishing from a prescribed area of the Pacific Coast ‘all persons of Japanese ancestry, both alien and non-alien,’ clearly does not meet that test. Being an obvious racial discrimination, the [323 U.S. 214, 235] order deprives all those within its scope of the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. It further deprives these individuals of their constitutional rights to live and work where they will, to establish a home where they choose and to move about freely. In excommunicating them without benefit of hearings, this order also deprives them of all their constitutional rights to procedural due process. Yet no reasonable relation to an ‘immediate, imminent, and impending’ public danger is evident to support this racial restriction which is one of the most sweeping and complete deprivations of constitutional rights in the history of this nation in the absence of martial law.

It must be conceded that the military and naval situation in the spring of 1942 was such as to generate a very real fear of invasion of the Pacific Coast, accompanied by fears of sabotage and espionage in that area. The military command was therefore justified in adopting all reasonable means necessary to combat these dangers. In adjudging the military action taken in light of the then apparent dangers, we must not erect too high or too meticulous standards; it is necessary only that the action have some reasonable relation to the removal of the dangers of invasion, sabotage and espionage. But the exclusion, either temporarily or permanently, of all persons with Japanese blood in their veins has no such reasonable relation. And that relation is lacking because the exclusion order necessarily must rely for its reasonableness upon the assumption that all persons of Japanese ancestry may have a dangerous tendency to commit sabotage and espionage and to aid our Japanese enemy in other ways. It is difficult to believe that reason, logic or experience could be marshalled in support of such an assumption.

That this forced exclusion was the result in good measure of this erroneous assumption of racial guilt rather than [323 U.S. 214, 236] bona fide military necessity is evidenced by the Commanding General’s Final Report on the evacuation from the Pacific Coast area. 1 In it he refers to all individuals of Japanese descent as ‘subversive,’ as belonging to ‘an enemy race’ whose ‘racial strains are undiluted,’ and as constituting ‘over 112,000 potential enemies … at large today’ along the Pacific Coast. 2 In support of this blanket condemnation of all persons of Japanese descent, however, no reliable evidence is cited to show that such individuals were generally disloyal,3 or had generally so conducted themselves in this area as to constitute a special menace to defense installations or war industries, or had otherwise by their behavior furnished reasonable ground for their exclusion as a group.

Justification for the exclusion is sought, instead, mainly upon questionable racial and sociological grounds not [323 U.S. 214, 237] ordinarily within the realm of expert military judgment, supplemented by certain semi-military conclusions drawn from an unwarranted use of circumstantial evidence. Individuals of Japanese ancestry are condemned because they are said to be ‘a large, unassimilated, tightly knit racial group, bound to an enemy nation by strong ties of race, culture, custom and religion.’ 4 They are claimed to be given to ’emperor worshipping ceremonies’5 and to ‘dual citizenship.’ 6 Japanese language schools and allegedly pro-Japanese organizations are cited as evidence of possible group disloyalty,7 together with facts as to [323 U.S. 214, 238] certain persons being educated and residing at length in Japan. 8 It is intimated that many of these individuals deliberately resided ‘adjacent to strategic points,’ thus enabling them ‘to carry into execution a tremendous program of sabotage on a mass scale should any considerable number of them have been inclined to do so.’9 The need for protective custody is also asserted. The report refers without identity to ‘numerous incidents of violence’ as well as to other admittedly unverified or cumulative incidents. From this, plus certain other events not shown to have been connected with the Japanese Americans, it is concluded that the ‘situation was fraught with danger to the Japanese population itself’ and that the general public ‘was ready to take matters into its own hands.’ 10 Finally, it is intimated, though not directly [323 U.S. 214, 239] charged or proved, that persons of Japanese ancestry were responsible for three minor isolated shellings and bombings of the Pacific Coast area,11 as well as for unidentified radio transmissions and night signalling.

The main reasons relied upon by those responsible for the forced evacuation, therefore, do not prove a reasonable relation between the group characteristics of Japanese Americans and the dangers of invasion, sabotage and espionage. The reasons appear, instead, to be largely an accumulation of much of the misinformation, half-truths and insinuations that for years have been directed against Japanese Americans by people with racial and economic prejudices-the same people who have been among the foremost advocates of the evacuation. 12 A military judg- [323 U.S. 214, 240] ment based upon such racial and sociological considerations is not entitled to the great weight ordinarily given the judgments based upon strictly military considerations. Especially is this so when every charge relative to race, religion, culture, geographical location, and legal and economic status has been substantially discredited by independent studies made by experts in these matters. 13

The military necessity which is essential to the validity of the evacuation order thus resolves itself into a few intimations that certain individuals actively aided the enemy, from which it is inferred that the entire group of Japanese Americans could not be trusted to be or remain loyal to the United States. No one denies, of course, that there were some disloyal persons of Japanese descent on the Pacific Coast who did all in their power to aid their ancestral land. Similar disloyal activities have been engaged in by many persons of German, Italian and even more pioneer stock in our country. But to infer that examples of individual disloyalty prove group disloyalty and justify discriminatory action against the entire group is to deny that under our system of law individual guilt is the sole basis for deprivation of rights. Moreover, this inference, which is at the very heart of the evacuation orders, has been used in support of the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy. To give constitutional sanction to that inference in this case, however well- intentioned may have been the military command on the Pacific Coast, is to adopt one of the cruelest of the rationales used by our enemies to destroy the dignity of the individual and to encourage and open the door to discriminatory actions against other minority groups in the passions of tomorrow. [323 U.S. 214, 241] No adequate reason is given for the failure to treat these Japanese Americans on an individual basis by holding investigations and hearings to separate the loyal from the disloyal, as was done in the case of persons of German and Italian ancestry. See House Report No. 2124 (77th Cong., 2d Sess.) 247-52. It is asserted merely that the loyalties of this group ‘were unknown and time was of the essence.’ 14 Yet nearly four months elapsed after Pearl Harbor before the first exclusion order was issued; nearly eight months went by until the last order was issued; and the last of these ‘subversive’ persons was not actually removed until almost eleven months had elapsed. Leisure and deliberation seem to have been more of the essence than speed. And the fact that conditions were not such as to warrant a declaration of martial law adds strength to the belief that the factors of time and military necessity were not as urgent as they have been represented to be.

Moreover, there was no adequate proof that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the military and naval intelligence services did not have the espionage and sabotage situation well in hand during this long period. Nor is there any denial of the fact that not one person of Japanese ancestry was accused or convicted of espionage or sabotage after Pearl Harbor while they were still free,15 a fact which is some evidence of the loyalty of the vast majority of these individuals and of the effectiveness of the established methods of combatting these evils. It [323 U.S. 214, 242] seems incredible that under these circumstances it would have been impossible to hold loyalty hearings for the mere 112,000 persons involved- or at least for the 70,000 American citizens-especially when a large part of this number represented children and elderly men and women.16 Any inconvenience that may have accompanied an attempt to conform to procedural due process cannot be said to justify violations of constitutional rights of individuals.

I dissent, therefore, from this legalization of racism. Racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life. It is unattractive in any setting but it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States. All residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land. Yet they are primarily and necessarily a part of the new and distinct civilization of the United States. They must accordingly be treated at all times as the heirs of the American experiment and as entitled to all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

Mr. Justice JACKSON, dissenting.

Korematsu was born on our soil, of parents born in Japan. The Constitution makes him a citizen of the United States by nativity and a citizen of California by [323 U.S. 214, 243] residence. No claim is made that he is not loyal to this country. There is no suggestion that apart from the matter involved here he is not law- abiding and well disposed. Korematsu, however, has been convicted of an act not commonly a crime. It consists merely of being present in the state whereof he is a citizen, near the place where he was born, and where all his life he has lived.

Even more unusual is the series of military orders which made this conduct a crime. They forbid such a one to remain, and they also forbid him to leave. They were so drawn that the only way Korematsu could avoid violation was to give himself up to the military authority. This meant submission to custody, examination, and transportation out of the territory, to be followed by indeterminate confinement in detention camps.

A citizen’s presence in the locality, however, was made a crime only if his parents were of Japanese birth. Had Korematsu been one of four-the others being, say, a German alien enemy, an Italian alien enemy, and a citizen of American-born ancestors, convicted of treason but out on parole- only Korematsu’s presence would have violated the order. The difference between their innocence and his crime would result, not from anything he did, said, or thought, different than they, but only in that he was born of different racial stock.

Now, if any fundamental assumption underlies our system, it is that guilt is personal and not inheritable. Even if all of one’s antecedents had been convicted of treason, the Constitution forbids its penalties to be visited upon him, for it provides that ‘no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.’ Article 3, 3, cl. 2. But here is an attempt to make an otherwise innocent act a crime merely because this prisoner is the son of parents as to whom he had no choice, and belongs to a race from which there is no way to resign. If Congress in peace-time legislation should [323 U.S. 214, 244] enact such a criminal law, I should suppose this Court would refuse to enforce it.

But the ‘law’ which this prisoner is convicted of disregarding is not found in an act of Congress, but in a military order. Neither the Act of Congress nor the Executive Order of the President, nor both together, would afford a basis for this conviction. It rests on the orders of General DeWitt. And it is said that if the military commander had reasonable military grounds for promulgating the orders, they are constitutional and become law, and the Court is required to enforce them. There are several reasons why I cannot subscribe to this doctrine.

It would be impracticable and dangerous idealism to expect or insist that each specific military command in an area of probable operations will conform to conventional tests of constitutionality. When an area is so beset that it must be put under military control at all, the paramount consideration is that its measures be successful, rather than legal. The armed services must protect a society, not merely its Constitution. The very essence of the military job is to marshal physical force, to remove every obstacle to its effectiveness, to give it every strategic advantage. Defense measures will not, and often should not, be held within the limits that bind civil authority in peace. No court can require such a commander in such circumstances to act as a reasonable man; he may be unreasonably cautious and exacting. Perhaps he should be. But a commander in temporarily focusing the life of a community on defense is carrying out a military program; he is not making law in the sense the courts know the term. He issues orders, and they may have a certain authority as military commands, although they may be very bad as constitutional law.

But if we cannot confine military expedients by the Constitution, neither would I distort the Constitution to approve all that the military may deem expedient. This is [323 U.S. 214, 245] what the Court appears to be doing, whether consciously or not. I cannot say, from any evidence before me, that the orders of General DeWitt were not reasonably expedient military precautions, nor could I say that they were. But even if they were permissible military procedures, I deny that it follows that they are constitutional. If, as the Court holds, it does follow, then we may as well say that any military order will be constitutional and have done with it.

The limitation under which courts always will labor in examining the necessity for a military order are illustrated by this case. How does the Court know that these orders have a reasonable basis in necessity? No evidence whatever on that subject has been taken by this or any other court. There is sharp controversy as to the credibility of the DeWitt report. So the Court, having no real evidence before it, has no choice but to accept General DeWitt’s own unsworn, self-serving statement, untested by any cross-examination, that what he did was reasonable. And thus it will always be when courts try to look into the reasonableness of a military order.

In the very nature of things military decisions are not susceptible of intelligent judicial appraisal. They do not pretend to rest on evidence, but are made on information that often would not be admissible and on assumptions that could not be proved. Information in support of an order could not be disclosed to courts without danger that it would reach the enemy. Neither can courts act on communications made in confidence. Hence courts can never have any real alternative to accepting the mere declaration of the authority that issued the order that it was reasonably necessary from a military viewpoint.

Much is said of the danger to liberty from the Army program for deporting and detaining these citizens of Japanese extraction. But a judicial construction of the due process clause that will sustain this order is a farm more [323 U.S. 214, 246] subtle blow to liberty than the promulgation of the order itself. A military order, however unconstitutional, is not apt to last longer than the military emergency. Even during that period a succeeding commander may revoke it all. But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens. The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need. Every repetition imbeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes. All who observe the work of courts are familiar with what Judge Cardozo described as ‘the tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limit of its logic.’ 1 A military commander may overstep the bounds of constitutionality, and it is an incident. But if we review and approve, that passing incident becomes the doctrine of the Constitution. There it has a generative power of its own, and all that it creates will be in its own image. Nothing better illustrates this danger than does the Court’s opinion in this case.

It argues that we are bound to uphold the conviction of Korematsu because we upheld one in Kiyshi Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, when we sustained these orders in so far as they applied a curfew requirement to a citizen of Japanese ancestry. I think we should learn something from that experience.

In that case we were urged to consider only that curfew feature, that being all that technically was involved, because it was the only count necessary to sustain Hirabayashi’s conviction and sentence. We yielded, and the Chief Justice guarded the opinion as carefully as language [323 U.S. 214, 247] will do. He said: ‘Our investigation here does not go beyond the inquiry whether, in the light of all the relevant circumstances preceding and attending their promulgation, the challenged orders and statute afforded a reasonable basis for the action taken in imposing the curfew.’ 320 U.S. at page 101, 63 S.Ct. at page 1386. ‘We decide only the issue as we have defined it-we decide only that the curfew order as applied, and at the time it was applied, was within the boundaries of the war power.’ 320 U.S. at page 102, 63 S.Ct. at page 1386. And again: ‘It is unnecessary to consider whether or to what extent such findings would support orders differing from the curfew order.’ 320 U.S. at page 105, 63 S.Ct. at page 1387. (Italics supplied.) However, in spite of our limiting words we did validate a discrimination of the basis of ancestry for mild and temporary deprivation of liberty. Now the principle of racial discrimination is pushed from support of mild measures to very harsh ones, and from temporary deprivations to indeterminate ones. And the precedent which it is said requires us to do so is Hirabayashi. The Court is now saying that in Hirabayashi we did decide the very things we there said we were not deciding. Because we said that these citizens could be made to stay in their homes during the hours of dark, it is said we must require them to leave home entirely; and if that, we are told they may also be taken into custody for deportation; and if that, it is argued they may also be held for some undetermined time in detention camps. How far the principle of this case would be extended before plausible reasons would play out, I do not know.

I should hold that a civil court cannot be made to enforce an order which violates constitutional limitations even if it is a reasonable exercise of military authority. The courts can exercise only the judicial power, can apply only law, and must abide by the Constitution, or they cease to be civil courts and become instruments of military policy. [323 U.S. 214, 248] Of course the existence of a military power resting on force, so vagrant, so centralized, so necessarily heedless of the individual, is an inherent threat to liberty. But I would not lead people to rely on this Court for a review that seems to me wholly delusive. The military reasonableness of these orders can only be determined by military superiors. If the people ever let command of the war power fall into irresponsible and unscrupulous hands, the courts wield no power equal to its restraint. The chief restraint upon those who command the physical forces of the country, in the future as in the past, must be their responsibility to the political judgments of their contemporaries and to the moral judgments of history.

My duties as a justice as I see them do not require me to make a military judgment as to whether General DeWitt’s evacuation and detention program was a reasonable military necessity. I do not suggest that the courts should have attempted to interfere with the Army in carrying out its task. But I do not think they may be asked to execute a military expedient that has no place in law under the Constitution I would reverse the judgment and discharge the prisoner.

Footnotes

[ Footnote 1] 140 F.2d 289.

[ Footnote 2] Hearings before the Subcommittee on the National War Agencies Appropriation Bill for 1945, Part II, 608-726; Final Report, Japanese Evacuation from the West Coast, 1942, 309-327; Hearings before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, 78th Cong., 2d Sess., on H.R. 2701 and other bills to expatriate certain nationals of the United States, pp. 37-42, 49-58.

[ Footnote 1] 7 Fed.Reg. 1407.

[ Footnote 2] 7 Fed.Reg. 2320.

[ Footnote 3] 56 Stat. 173, 18 U.S.C.A. 97a.

[ Footnote 4] 7 Fed.Reg. 2601.

[ Footnote 5] The italics in the quotation are mine. The use of the word ‘voluntarily’ exhibits a grim irony probably not lost on petitioner and others in like case. Either so, or its use was a disingenuous attempt to camouflage the compulsion which was to be applied.

[ Footnote 6] 7 Fed.Reg. 3967.

[ Footnote 7] Fed.Reg. 2165.

[ Footnote 8] My agreement would depend on the definition and application of the terms ‘temporary’ and ’emergency’. No pronouncement of the commanding officer can, in my view, preclude judicial inquiry and determination whether an emergency ever existed and whether, if so, it remained, at the date of the restraint out of which the litigation arose. Cf. Chastleton Corporation v. Sinclair, 264 U.S. 543, 44 S.Ct. 405.

[ Footnote 1] Final Report, Japanese Evacuation from the West Coast, 1942, by Lt. Gen. J. L. De Witt. This report is dated June 5, 1943, but was not made public until January, 1944.

[ Footnote 2] Further evidence of the Commanding General’s attitude toward individuals of Japanese ancestry is revealed in his voluntary testimony on April 13, 1943, in San Francisco before the House Naval Affairs Subcommittee to Investigate Congested Areas, Part 3, pp. 739-40 (78th Cong ., 1st Sess.):

I don’t want any of them (persons of Japanese ancestry) here. They are a dangerous element. There is no way to determine their loyalty. The west coast contains too many vital installations essential to the defense of the country to allow any Japanese on this coast. … The danger of the Japanese was, and is now-if they are permitted to come back-espionage and sabotage. It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen, he is still a Japanese. American citizenship does not necessarily determine loyalty. … But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map. Sabotage and espionage will make problems as long as he is allowed in this area. …’

[ Footnote 3] The Final Report, p. 9, casts a cloud of suspicion over the entire group by saying that ‘while it was believed that some were loyal, it was known that many were not.’ (Italics added.)

[ Footnote 4] Final Report, p. vii; see also pp. 9, 17. To the extent that assimilation is a problem, it is largely the result of certain social customs and laws of the American general public. Studies demonstrate that persons of Japanese descent are readily susceptible to integration in our society if given the opportunity. Strong, The Second-Generation Japanese Problem (1934); Smith, Americans in Process (1937); Mears, Resident Orientals on the American Pacific Coast (1928); Millis, The Japanese Problem in the United States (1942). The failure to accomplish an ideal status of assimilation, therefore, cannot be charged to the refusal of these persons to become Americanized or to their loyalty to Japan. And the retention by some persons of certain customs and religious practices of their ancestors is no criterion of their loyalty to the United States.

[ Footnote 5] Final Report, pp. 10-11. No sinister correlation between the emperor worshipping activities and disloyalty to America was shown.

[ Footnote 6] Final Report, p. 22. The charge of ‘dual citizenship’ springs from a misunderstanding of the simple fact that Japan in the past used the doctrine of jus sanguinis, as she had a right to do under international law, and claimed as her citizens all persons born of Japanese nationals wherever located. Japan has greatly modified this doctrine, however, by allowing all Japanese born in the United States to renounce any claim of dual citizenship and by releasing her claim as to all born in the United States after 1925. See Freeman, ‘Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus; Genealogy, Evacuation, and Law,’ 28 Cornell L.Q. 414, 447-8, and authorities there cited; McWilliams, Prejudice, 123-4 (1944).

[ Footnote 7] Final Report, pp. 12. We have has various foreign language schools in this country for generations without considering their existence as ground for racial discrimination. No subversive activities or teachings have been shown in connection with the Japanese schools. McWilliams, Prejudice, 121-3 (1944).

[ Footnote 8] Final Report, pp. 13. Such persons constitute a very small part of the entire group and most of them belong to the Kibei movement-the actions and membership of which are well known to our Government agents.

[ Footnote 9] Final Report, p. 10 see also pp. vii, 9, 15-17. This insinuation, based purely upon speculation and circumstantial evidence, completely overlooks the fact that the main geographic pattern of Japanese population was fixed many years ago with reference to economic, social and soil conditions. Limited occupational outlets and social pressures encouraged their concentration near their initial points of entry on the Pacific Coast. That these points may now be near certain strategic military and industrial areas is no proof of a diabolical purpose on the part of Japanese Americans. See McWilliams, Prejudice, 119-121 (1944); House Report No. 2124 (77th Cong., 2d Sess.), 59-93.

[ Footnote 10] Final Report, pp. 8. This dangerous doctrine of protective custody, as proved by recent European history, should have absolutely no standing as an excuse for the deprivation of the rights of minority groups. See House Report No. 1911 (77th Cong., 2d Sess.) 1-2. Cf. House Report No. 2124 (77th Cong., 2d Sess.) 145-7. In this instance, moreover, there are only two minor instances of violence on record involving persons of Japanese ancestry. McWilliams, What About Our Japanese-Americans? Public Affairs Pamphlets, No. 91, p. 8 (1944).

[ Footnote 11] Final Report, p. 18. One of these incidents (the reputed dropping of incendiary bombs on an Oregon forest) occurred on Sept. 9, 1942-a considerable time after the Japanese American had been evacuated from their home and placed in Assembly Centers. See New York Times, Sept. 15, 1942, p. 1, col. 3.

[ Footnote 12] Special interest groups were extremely active in applying pressure for mass evacuation. See House Report No. 2124 (77th Cong., 2d Sess.) 154- 6; McWilliams, Prejudice, 126-8 (1944). Mr. Austin E. Anson, managing secretary of the Salinas Vegetable Grower-Shipper Association, has frankly admitted that ‘We’re charged with wanting to get rid of the Japs for selfish reasons. We do. It’s a question of whether the white man lives on the Pacific Coast or the brown men. They came into this valley to work, and they stayed to take over. … They undersell the white man in the markets. … They work their women and children while the white farmer has to pay wages for his help,. If all the Japs were removed tomorrow, we’d never miss them in two weeks, because the white farmers can take over and produce everything the Jap grows. And we don’t want them back when the war ends, either.’ Quoted by Taylor in his article ‘The People Nobody Wants,’ 214 Sat. Eve. Post 24, 66 (May 9, 1942).

[ Footnote 13] See notes 4-12, supra.

[ Footnote 14] Final Report, p. vii; see also p. 18.

[ Footnote 15] The Final Report, p. 34, makes the amazing statement that as of February 14, 1942, ‘The very fact that no sabotage has taken place to date is a disturbing and confirming indication that such action will be taken.’ Apparently, in the minds of the military leaders, there was no way that the Japanese Americans could escape the suspicion of sabotage.

[ Footnote 16] During a period of six months, the 112 alien tribunals or hearing boards set up by the British Government shortly after the outbreak of the present war summoned and examined approximately 74,000 German and Austrian aliens. These tribunals determined whether each individual enemy alien was a real enemy of the Allies or only a ‘friendly enemy.’ About 64,000 were freed from internment and from any special restrictions, and only 2,000 were interned. Kempner, ‘The Enemy Alien Problem in the Present War,’ 34 Amer. Journ. of Int. Law 443, 444-46; House Report No. 2124 (77th Cong., 2d Sess.), 280-1.

[ Footnote 1] Nature of the Judicial Process, p. 51.

Ticks and Other

Insect Vector-Borne Health Risks

TEOTOWAKI Will Never Happen

The 3’s of Survival Are Worthless Tripe

Knowledge Is NOT Power !!

Learn What Is

Anti-Government & Other

Counter Productive Attitudes

Radioactive Fallout in Water Soon to Hit

the West Coast of the USA and Canada

Prudent Steps to Prepare

Hot – Breaking Topics & News

Do you have a Faraday Cage?

Earthquakes Happen Everyday What Should You Know?

Earthquake Live Feed Interactive Map

Never Heat Food or Water in Plastic

With Recycle Codes 1, 3, or 7

PETE or PVC Plastic NEVER !!

What should you do if you breakdown on the highway?

Comfort & Routine Is Your Survival

Military Styled BugOut Plans Don’t Work

I Choose the Country Lifestyle

Urban or Rural?

If You BugOut Without A Plan

You Are A Refugee

Winter Travel in Your Vehicle? Have a Kit

If the roads are flooded what should you do?

I came around the corner right into a giant puddle

Now what should I do?

If You Are Away From Home Be Prepared

You Might Not Be Able to Get Home

Water – What You Need to Know

Silver Solutions the Good, the Bad and the Facts

Understand Social Order and Teamwork

If You Want to Survive a Disaster – Sociology 101

Everything You Need to Know to be a Leader

Colloidial or Ionic Silver

Urban Dweller Perspectives on Survival

Learn How to Cut Your WayThrough the BS and Get the True Facts

Outdoor & Hiking Survival Skills & Tips

General Preparedness Tips & Skills

For Personal Home & Businesses

Urban Dwelling Requires

Special Survival Skills Every Day

Things That You Need to Know

If You Are A Hunter or Survivalist

If You Are A Prepper

These Skills Are For You

Do You Drive Your 4 Wheel Drive Vehicle

Off Road? Then Check Out

Will’s Wheeling Our Companion Site

If you really want to survive, You need to understand how to build a team, lead it, create a societal structure, and history

Understand water; What you need, How stay hydrated, How to harvest it, How to carry it, How to Treat, Filter, and Purify It

Every time that you get into your vehicle; car, truck, van, etc. You are at risk. Even in the parking lot. Before you go on the road prepare and educate yourself.

Find Lots of Great Information

From Governmental Sources

Environmental, Legal, Government, & More

Please contact our Webmaster with questions or comments. © Copyright 2011 PracticeSurvival.com, SurviveWithWill.com Integrity Protection Service All rights reserved. Reproduction, printing, redistribution without expressed written permission is forbidden and illegal.

PracticeSurvival.com Disclaimer Notice

All of the information on this website is offered on the strict basis that you and others will exercise proper caution and care in doing any of the things that are presented on this site. YOU are solely responsible for the use to which you put this material. You must take responsibility for your own actions.

These pages are intended to open your eyes, begin your road to enlightenment. We are on a shoe string budget so we do our best to edit and error check, if there may be some typos for which we appologize in advance. The idea is to introduce ideas for you to investigate further and prepare you to understand his classes. Some activities related to wilderness survival and preparedness can be dangerous if done without proper care and attention. Please be careful and attentive when engaging in any of these activities.

Be reasonable, responsible, take proper precautions, and exercise common sense.

The techniques shown on this website are meant solely for use in primitive wilderness survival and emergency off grid situations. Please note that in most places it is illegal to use some of the methods suggested to capture animals unless you are actually in a life and death survival situation.

Contact Info: PO Box 1448, Bellmawr, NJ 08099 USA Email: info@survivewithwill.com Phone: 856-861-0300

Terror an Overview

Will Hemingway — Sun, 11 Aug 2013 23:42:28 +0000

For years on the show I have been warning about these major hotspots that have gone without attention. Thanks in large part to the USA being so expansive we are able to survive with a population that is largely ignorant of its surroundings. These threats are real, serious and have been in our back yard for years. The fact that September 11, 2001 occurred should not be a shock but a call to arms. We must arm ourselves with knowledge of our foes, strengthen ourselves with unity and tighten our borders and general security. Below is a list of the points of interest that I have been called crazy and alarmist about for years. They are serious.

Peru & Ecuador

Home to Islamic fundamentalists and also Communist rebels connected with Cuba. A big supplier of oil to the USA. Recent incidents include oil workers (including 2 US citizens) being held hostage by rebels and the bombing of government buildings. Lori Berenson, a US citizen from NYC, NY has been tried, retried and twice convicted of consorting with terrorist members on the TUPAC Amaru Revolutionary Movement. (note Tupac Amaru, son of Manco Capac an Inca in the 1500’s, after his father’s death with his half-brother as Inca swore to “do as much harm to Christians as possible” terrorized the occupying force of Spain in Peru.) Read more about Tupac Amaru Click here. Berenson has been detained by Peruvian security forces since November 30, 1995. At the time, she was living with members of the Movement -- an armed Peruvian organization -- in a Lima suburb. bomb making materials and plans for bombing a government building were present. She claims that she was a freelance journalist working for a leftist publications and had no idea.

Panama Canal and the Chinese / COSCO connection

I have been railing about this threat since President Carter set out to give away the canal. Bill Clinton carried out the dream of arguably one of the worst Presidents in our history. Under Bill Clinton’s watch, he “returned” the canal to Panama. Immediately after which Panama awarded the contract to operate and secure both ends of the canal to COSCO. You’ve seen those land/sea containers, they are everywhere. Learn why that is a problem. (Click here)

The Philippines

The Philippines are home to over 34 radical Islamic terror groups who are bent on over throwing the Philippine government. The Philippine government has been acquiescing to their demands. It is a dangerous game. Making deals with the Devil. The historical record proves the abject failure of such an approach.

© Copyright 2001-2003 WillHemingway.com, int-pro.com - A Publication of Will Hemingway Productions and Will Hemingway
All Rights Reserved ISSN 1537-5994
This written work is protected by international copyright laws. The copyright laws prohibit any copying, redistributing, retransmitting, or repurposing of any copyright protected material. Refer to the total list of restrictions and rules of usage. Click here to read them.
If you are interested in reprinting this article and obtaining proper licenses, please contact Will Hemingway Productions at (856) 816-1764.
P.O. Box 1448, Bellmawr, NJ 08099-5448


	SurviveWithWill.com Articles Country Info Preparedness Will's Bio Photo Gallery Legal PracticeSurvival.com Top Page Old Will Hemingway Untitled194


	Please contact our Webmaster with questions or comments. © Copyright 2011 PracticeSurvival.com, Integrity Protection Service All rights reserved. Reproduction, printing, redistribution without expressed written permission is forbidden and illegal.

Visit Our Companion Site


	Tweets by @PracticeSurviva

Search This Site

ProTick Remedy Tool
Our Top Pick
$ 6.00 in Our eStore
www.simplesurvivalgear.com

Please note that you will be redirected to
SimpleSurvivalGear.com it is the eStore for all of PracticeSurvival.com and its companion websites

Don’t be alarmed we consolidated the eStore into one address for customer simplicity.

Visit Our Companion Sites




		Homeland Security Department News Headlines

			National Terror Alert

Gen. Pershing

Will Hemingway — Sun, 11 Aug 2013 23:42:20 +0000

General “Black Jack” Pershing

A story had come my way from a listener to my radio show (which I have not been able to totally confirm as anything more than myth) in response to my comments on 2/6/03. Since then I have received several E-mails regarding the facts surrounding the incident. I have provided a little background on General Pershing for background.
The following is the story that was sent to me. I am not totally convinced that the story is true, there may be some truth to it.

How General Perishing got rid of the terrorist problem before W.W.I

The Answer

General “Black Jack” Pershing was born September 13th, 1860 near Laclede,
MS., Died July 15th, 1948 in Washington, D.C.

1891 Professor of Military Science and Tactics University of Nebraska…..
1898 Serves in the Spanish-American War
1901 Awarded rank of Captain
1906 Promoted to rank of Brigadier General
1909 Military Governor of Moro Province, Philippines
1916 Made Major General
1919 Promoted to General of the Armies
1921 Appointed Chief of Staff
1924 Retires from active duty Education West Point.

Just Before World War One — there were a number of terrorist attacks on the United States by; you guessed it, Moslem extremists. They were indeed Moslem, the Moros of the islands of Mindanao and Samar that had been earlier proselytized by Moslem missionaries beginning in 1380 AD.
The attacks were not against the continental USA. They occurred on US territorial lands comprising the Philippines. The land which the USA had taken by right of conquest during the Spanish-American War. The attacks occurred during the American occupation of the archipelago.
General Pershing captured 50 terrorists and had them tied to posts execution style. One important thing to note beforehand is that Moslem detest pork, because they believe pigs are filthy animals. Moslem are very Kosher. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won’t even touch pigs at all, nor any of their byproducts. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise and doomed to hell. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the, now horrified, terrorists. The soldiers then soaked their bullets in the pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad. The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist’s bodies and covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc. They let the 50th man go. And for the next forty-two years, there was not a single Muslim extremist attack anywhere in the world. We had no contacts with Moslem on their own turf or sand until 42 years later
Although Pershing may have been charged with carrying out the death warrants some time between 1909 and 1913, regular army troops were slowly supplanted between 1899 and 1905-6 by an American civilian police force known as the American Philippine Constabulary. It was this “PC” (and not US troops) that kept the peace, and until Manuel Queen became president in 1935, that was attacked by those Moro insurgents who were later executed in this peculiar fashion.
Read “Jungle Patrol” by Vic Hurley, copyright 1939, for the full details of America’s thirty-six year’s jungle warfare in the Philippines.
Thanks to William N. Gail lard for your input regarding this story.

Panama & COSCO

Will Hemingway — Tue, 05 Oct 2004 23:42:35 +0000

The turnover of the Panama Canal may turn out be to one of most foolish strategic blunders in the history of the USA. The canal itself is the major shipping way for all goods transported by ship between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. It was paid for with the funding and the lives of many Americans, we paid dearly for the canal yet we are quote giving it back. Giving it back !!!! Do you give back your car or your house after you bought it, maintained it, built it???? What crap !!!

Well, now it is under the control of COSCO Group who according to our own government acknowledges that the management of the company is directly connected to the Red Chinese (communist) Government. Now thanks to unusual special treatment from Bill Clinton they have control of both ends of the Canal. Imagine what a bargaining chip that would be for the Chinese. They have placed, by most estimates, 37,000 Red Chinese military troops at each end of the Canal. If we were involved in a conflict with China, for example a dispute over North Korea’s Nukes or the spy plane and personnel that went down, where would we be? and our economic well being? If they closed down the Canal? Oooo there’s a thought !! Oooops! Well, I guess that we could negotiate !!! Arghhh!!!!

The whole thing goes back to the issue surrounding the campaign finance scandal linking Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Charlie Trie and Johnny Chung.(updated 2017) Read the article on UK Daily Mail

The original article has been deleted: Read Johnny Chung’s testimony on FreeRepublic.com

United States Constitution

2004-10-05 Will Hemingway Comments Off on United States Constitution
Mission Statement & Impetus

2018-02-23 Will Hemingway Comments Off on Mission Statement & Impetus
Motivation, Manipulation, Coercion, and Enticement

2018-03-01 Will Hemingway Comments Off on Motivation, Manipulation, Coercion, and Enticement
The Magna Carta

2016-01-19 Will Hemingway Comments Off on The Magna Carta
The Reason for SurviveWithWill and PracticeSurvival.com

2016-02-04 Will Hemingway Comments Off on The Reason for SurviveWithWill and PracticeSurvival.com
Hegelian Dialectic -Manipulating People for Power & Profit

2017-12-29 Will Hemingway Comments Off on Hegelian Dialectic -Manipulating People for Power & Profit
Save Western Civilization & Culture

2018-06-30 Will Hemingway Comments Off on Save Western Civilization & Culture
Combat Arms Survey US Government

2017-12-10 Will Hemingway Comments Off on Combat Arms Survey US Government
When facts are not the whole story

2020-04-20 Will Hemingway Comments Off on When facts are not the whole story
How Your Brain Responds to Repetitive Fear Based Reports

2018-01-01 Will Hemingway Comments Off on How Your Brain Responds to Repetitive Fear Based Reports

Balancing Freedom & Governance

2018-01-24 Will Hemingway Comments Off on Balancing Freedom & Governance
Liberty, Freedom, and Sovereignty

2020-04-30 Will Hemingway Comments Off on Liberty, Freedom, and Sovereignty
Magna Carta

2013-08-11 Will Hemingway Comments Off on Magna Carta
Posse Comitatus

2016-01-15 Will Hemingway Comments Off on Posse Comitatus
When Has Government Gone Too Far?

2018-01-24 Will Hemingway Comments Off on When Has Government Gone Too Far?

Assimilate!

2013-08-11 Will Hemingway Comments Off on Assimilate!
Posse Comitatus

2016-01-15 Will Hemingway Comments Off on Posse Comitatus
Hegelian Dialectic -Manipulating People for Power & Profit

2017-12-29 Will Hemingway Comments Off on Hegelian Dialectic -Manipulating People for Power & Profit
Prepper Friends

2013-08-11 Will Hemingway Comments Off on Prepper Friends
What is Survivalism, Preparedness, Readiness?

2017-12-10 Will Hemingway Comments Off on What is Survivalism, Preparedness, Readiness?
Forget TEOTWAWKI

2013-08-11 Will Hemingway Comments Off on Forget TEOTWAWKI
Survival Needs Team

2013-08-11 Will Hemingway Comments Off on Survival Needs Team
Gen. Pershing

2013-08-11 Will Hemingway Comments Off on Gen. Pershing
Know Thine Enemy

2013-08-11 Will Hemingway Comments Off on Know Thine Enemy
Will’s Bio

2012-09-12 Will Hemingway Comments Off on Will’s Bio

Alert – Eyes on – Venezuela, Columbia, and Panama

The Main Stream Media has a centuries long history of turning a blind eye or forwarding the advance of communist and socialist dictatorships and rebel hit squads highlighted by the ELN and the FARC. Millions Read More

Threats from Above – Space Junk Falling to the Earth Near You

Technology has altered the way that humans see the world. There was a time when perceptions like that of the Aborigines portrayed in “The Gods must be crazy” would have been commonplace even in advanced Read More

Alaska 7.9 m Earthquake and Tsunami Warning 2018-01-23 0031 hrs local

2018-01-23 0031hrs AST (local time AK) Alaska 7.9 m Earthquake and Tsunami Warning On “he ring of fire” due south of Anchorage, AK. There have been 22 aftershocks in the immediate area. There were 39 Read More

EDC – Every Day Carry Kit

An EDC is Something That You Always Have with You EDCs are the main stay of a well-prepared outdoorsman, survivalist, or road warrior. They are generally small, easy to carry, generally on your belt, in […]

Seismic – Top

Seismic Activity and The Effect on Our World & Survival Seismic activity; the most common form of which is an earthquake, is often, but not always related to volcanic activity. Both types of events have […]

Physical Contamination

Many but not all the contaminated water sources with VOCs are near industrial, commercial areas, fuel stations, landfills, and railroad tracks. Some are a result of intentional and accidental dumping or spills like industrial accidents, […]

United States Constitution

Will Hemingway — Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:56:26 +0000

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription
The Verified Text of the Constitution
Including the Unratified Amendments
And an Index US Government Printing Office

Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) Items that are hyperlinked have since been amended or superseded. The authenticated text of the Constitution can be found on the website of the Government Printing Office.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section. 3.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Section. 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Section. 5.

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section. 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section. 9.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Section. 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Article. VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

The Word, “the,” being interlined between the seventh and eighth Lines of the first Page, The Word “Thirty” being partly written on an Erazure in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words “is tried” being interlined between the thirty second and thirty third Lines of the first Page and the Word “the” being interlined between the forty third and forty fourth Lines of the second Page.

Attest William Jackson Secretary

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.

Go Washington – President and deputy from Virginia

New Hampshire – John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman

Massachusetts – Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King

Connecticut – Wm Saml Johnson, Roger Sherman

New York – Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey – Wil Livingston, David Brearley, Wm Paterson, Jona. Dayton

Pennsylvania – B Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv Morris

Delaware – Geo. Read, Gunning Bedford jun, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco. Broom

Maryland – James McHenry, Dan of St Tho Jenifer, Danl Carroll

Virginia – John Blair, James Madison Jr.

North Carolina – Wm Blount, Richd Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson

South Carolina – J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler

Georgia – William Few, Abr Baldwin

Attest: William Jackson, Secretary

Important Historical Events & Facts – Survive with Will – Thoughtful Analysis & Perceptions

April 19 – High Incidence of Violence Historically

List of Major Terror Attacks 1968 – 2002

Posse Comitatus

Useful Info Landmark Legal Cases Korematsu v United States – 1946

Terror an Overview

Gen. Pershing

Panama & COSCO

Subscribe New Article Notifications

Free Dictionary

Recent Posts

Critical Thinking & Reasoned Thought

Perspectives Articles

Rights & Freedoms

Reference Material

Survive With Will Newsletter

Articles by Month

Categories

SurvivalSitReps.com Recent: Survival SitReps (Situation Reports)

Alert – Eyes on – Venezuela, Columbia, and Panama

Threats from Above – Space Junk Falling to the Earth Near You

Alaska 7.9 m Earthquake and Tsunami Warning 2018-01-23 0031 hrs local

PracticeSurvival.com Recent: Practice Survival

EDC – Every Day Carry Kit

Seismic – Top

Physical Contamination

United States Constitution