Notes for 3-11-09

3-11-09 1833- Supreme court/ Chief Justice Marshall- held that the safeguards provided in the bill of rights, applied only to the fed. Law. And not the state. Due process of law- who is entitled Due process of law? Supreme court answered it in the late 1800?s. Yick wo v. Hopkins (1886)- Petitioner Wo was in prison. Much of the city in San Francisco was wood. They passed a law that said you can?t have a laundry mat in a wood building. Grandfather clause- when someone is already in violation of the law, but makes them exempt of the new law. So all these companies that were new, were not allowed to be made of wood. But those that were already built, just need to upkeep it. When Wo reapplied for the license for his company, the Supreme court filed that he was not allowed to. He didn?t listen and continued with his business, so he was thrown in jail. He gave a writ of habeas corpus. City of san fran- would apply it to the 14th due process. He was not a American citizen. Justice day still held that it applied to him. ?applies to all persons, equal protection of law? so even non-citizens in residence are entitled to due process. 10 years later-> Wong Wing v. US. (1896)- brought before commissioner of customs. Us customs collector- said that they were not in the us legally. Circuit court found that they were here illegally. They were in violation of several laws. Held that they should go to jail (house of correction for 60 days), then be deported. Went to supreme court- they were respondents in US trying to get petition of residence. Filed that there was punishment with out legal trial. They were also here under a treaty with the US. Under 5th amend- because it was a federal due process case. Used the same quote as the Yick Wo case. 1950- Johnson v. Eisentrager- several German soldiers were captured toward the end of world war 2- captured on mainland china, and turned over to American military authorities. Tried and found guilty, shipped to serve time in the American zone in post war Germany. They filed motion of habeas corpus. They demanded to be released. The supreme court denied the request. Because at no time during the trial were they on American territorial jurisdiction, so they followed the international laws.