Tournament: Ithaca | Round: 1 | Opponent: Schools | Judge: Judges

The plan: The United States Supreme Court should overturn Korematsu v. US, Hirabayashi v. US, and Yasui v. US by ruling in Hedges v. Obama that Section 1021(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act is unconstitutional.

The precedent set by Korematsu v. United States is based on a flawed and racist institutional stance on indefinite detention

G. Edward White 11, Distinguished Professor of Law and University Professor, University of Virginia School of Law, December 2011, "Symposium: Supreme Mistakes: Determining Notoriety in Supreme Court Decisions," Pepperdine
 Law Review, 39 Pepp. L. Rev. 197, lexis nexis
II. Examples of Notorious Mistakes: A First Look¶ ¶ In the long
AND
to protect the civil rights of minorities as members of the Warren Court. 

The precedents make future internment likely—-it massively expands executive authority and offers unlimited deference

Nathan Watanabe 4, J.D. Candidate, University of Southern California Law School, 2004, "Internment, Civil Liberties, and a Nation in Crisis," Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 13 S. Cal. Interdisc. L. J. 2003-2004, Hein Online
B. THE INTERNMENT CASES¶ The greatest move towards containing the threat of sabotage
AND
times, these relics of the past are factually analogous and legally applicable.

This was not an aberration—-it was one instance consistent with an entire history of racism against Asian Americans—-we must right the wrong

Natsu Taylor Saito 1, professor at Georgia State University College of Law, 2001, "Symbolism Under Siege: Japanese American Redress and the ’Racing’ of Arab Americans as ’Terrorists,’" Asian Law Journal, 8 Asian L. J. 1, 2001, hein online
Thus far, it has the makings of a feel-good story: a
AND
Arabs, we’re all violent and we’re all conducting a holy war."67

We have a moral obligation to advocate for effective remedies to injustices like Korematsu—-the aff is the necessary starting point to prevent future violence in the name of executive authority

Natsu Taylor Saito 10, Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law, "ARTICLE: INTERNMENTS, THEN AND NOW: CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN POST-9/11 AMERICA", Spring, 2 Duke Forum for L. 26 Soc. Change 71, Lexis
The dangers illustrated by the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II appear to
AND
will ensure that they, too, will be repeated in the future.

The aff is necessary—-ending the precedent is vital to prevent history from repeating itself

Stephen I. Vladeck 9, associate professor at American University Washington College of Law, 2009, "The Long War, The Federal Courts, and the Necessity/Legality Paradox," 43 U. Rich. L. Rev. ahttps://webspace.utexas.edu/rmc2289/LT/Vladeck.Short.pdf
B. The Limits of Jackson’s Dissent—and of Wittes’s Argument¶ As much
AND
Court to be last, not first, to give them up. 158

Korematsu survives silently as a precedent for future violence—-only public debate can prevent history from repeating itself

Dean Masaru Hashimoto 96, Assistant Professor of Law at Boston College, "ARTICLE: THE LEGACY OF KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES: A DANGEROUS NARRATIVE RETOLD", Fall 1996, 4 UCLA Asian Pac. AM. Law Journal 72, Lexis
During times of war, citizens must bear tremendous costs and burdens; indeed,
AND
meaning of Korematsu can its potentially dangerous principles and rhetoric be limited effectively.

Student debate about internment is critical to actual political development—-influences the durable shifts in checks and balances

Dominguez and Thoren 10 Casey BK, Department of Political Science and IR at the University of San Diego and Kim, University of San Diego, Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, San Francisco, California, April 1-3, 2010, "The Evolution of Presidential Authority in War Powers", http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1580395
Students of American institutions should naturally be interested in the relationships between the president and
AND
study change over time in Congress’ relations to the other branches of government.

Academic, institutions-based debate regarding detention can reverse excessive presidential authority—-college students key

Kelly Michael Young 13, Associate Professor of Communication and Director of Forensics at Wayne State University, "Why Should We Debate About Restriction of Presidential War Powers", 9/4, public.cedadebate.org/node/13
Beyond its obviously timeliness, we believed debating about presidential war powers was important because of the stakes involved in the controversy. Since the Korean War, scholars and pundits have grown increasingly alarmed by the growing scope and techniques of presidential war making. In 1973, in the wake of Vietnam, Congress passed the joint War Powers Resolution (WPR) to increase Congress’s role in foreign policy and war making by requiring executive consultation with Congress prior to the use of military force, reporting within 48 hours after the start of hostiles, and requiring the close of military operations after 60 days unless Congress has authorized the use of force. Although the WPR was a significant legislative feat, 30 years since its passage, presidents have frequently ignores the WPR requirements and the changing nature of conflict does not fit neatly into these regulations. After the terrorist attacks on 9-11, many experts worry that executive war powers have expanded far beyond healthy limits.  Consequently, there is a fear that continued expansion of these powers will undermine the constitutional system of checks and balances that maintain the democratic foundation of this country and risk constant and unlimited military actions, particularly in what Stephen Griffin refers to as a "long war" period like the War on Terror (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674058286). In comparison, pro-presidential powers advocates contend that new restrictions undermine flexibility and timely decision-making necessary to effectively counter contemporary national security risks. Thus, a debate about presidential wars powers is important to investigate a number of issues that have serious consequences on the status of democratic checks and national security of the United States.¶ Lastly, debating presidential war powers is important because we the people have an important role in affecting the use of presidential war powers. As many legal scholars contend, regardless of the status of legal structures to check the presidency, an important political restrain on presidential war powers is the presence of a well-informed and educated public. As Justice Potter Stewart explains, "the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power…may lie in an enlightened citizenry – in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can protect the values of a democratic government" (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0713_ZC3.html). As a result, this is not simply an academic debate about institutions and powers that that do not affect us. As the numerous recent foreign policy scandals make clear, anyone who uses a cell-phone or the internet is potential affected by unchecked presidential war powers. Even if we agree that these powers are justified, it is important that today’s college students understand and appreciate the scope and consequences of presidential war powers, as these students’ opinions will stand as an important potential check on the presidency.