Share their answers on the board until a working definition of each are completed. Approving the military orders in this case will send a message that such military conduct is permissible in the future. This case is about convicting a citizen for not submitting to a concentration camp based solely on his ancestry, without evidence that the citizen was disloyal to the U.S. in any way. . On the board, ask students now to define what judicial activism and judicial restraint mean. Korematsu was convicted of only violating the evacuation order. United States. If Congress in peace-time legislation should enact such a criminal law, I should suppose this Court would refuse to enforce it. In its ruling, the Court upheld Korematsus conviction. Why were Japanese Americans interned during WWII? . 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. A Question4 In the case of Korematsu v United States the Supreme Court Answers A. document. Diagram of How the Case Moved Through the Court System, Congressional Gold Medal Celebration Invitation. Justice Murphy's two uses of the term "racism" in this opinion, along with two additional uses in his concurrence in Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co., decided the same day, are among the first appearances of the word "racism" in a United States Supreme Court opinion. It is either Roosevelt or us. Rather, he was evacuated because of real military dangers and limited time within which to deal with them. [22] While not admitting error, the government submitted a counter-motion asking the court to vacate the conviction without a finding of fact on its merits. This article was most recently revised and updated by, The Legacy of Order 9066 and Japanese American Internment, https://www.britannica.com/event/Korematsu-v-United-States, Densho Encyclopedia - Korematsu v. United States, Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute - Korematsu v. United States, Korematsu v. United States - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up). He acknowledged the Court's powerlessness in that regard, writing that "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."[14]. (AP Photo, used with permission from . 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." Making a donation to the internment of Japanese-Americans justified as a catastrophe, for 1944 ) Document a the! [14], In his diaries, Justice Felix Frankfurter reported that Justice Black told the justices as reason for deferring to the executive branch: "Somebody must run this war. The Korematsu v. U.S. decision from 1944 centered on the ability of the military, in times of war, to exclude and intern minority groups. Judge Marilyn Hall Patel denied the government's petition, and concluded that the Supreme Court had indeed been given a selective record, representing a compelling circumstance sufficient to overturn the original conviction. [10] On March 24, 1942, Western Defense Command began issuing Civilian Exclusion orders, commanding that "all persons of Japanese ancestry, including aliens and non-aliens" report to designated assembly points. Once convicted in federal district court, Korematsu appealed. 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. Korematsu appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. "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.". By March 21, Congress had enacted the proposed legislation, which Roosevelt signed into law. Korematsu v. United States stands as one of the lowest points in Supreme Court history. On May 3, Exclusion Order Number 34 was issued, under which 23-year-old Korematsu and his family were to be relocated. 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.[14]. Robert Houghwout Jackson (February 13, 1892 - October 9, 1954) was an American lawyer, jurist, and politician who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1941 until his death in 1954. The Supreme Court ruled that President Roosevelt's executive order and the enforcement law passed by Congress only . Such exclusion goes over "the very brink of constitutional power" and falls into the ugly abyss of racism.". Justice Gorsuch, writing in his dissent of United States v. Zubaydah, reiterated the fact that Korematsu was negligent. Black wrote that "Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race", but rather "because the properly constituted military authorities decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast" during the war against Japan. In Korematsu v. United States, decided in 1944, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld the president's action. The Court cross-referenced its decision the same day in Ex Parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), in which the Court ruled that a loyal Japanese American must be released from detention.[16]. Korematsu v. United States (1944) Early in World War II, on February 19, 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, granting the U.S. military the power to ban tens of. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions. Korematsu v. United States The trial of Korematsu v. United States started during World War II, when President Roosevelt passed Executive Order 9066 to command the placement of Japanese residents and Japanese citizens who were staying or located in the United States into special facilities where they were excluded from the general population. Discussing the Korematsu decision in their 1982 report entitled Personal Justice Denied, this Congressional Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CCWRIC) concluded that "each part of the decision, questions of both factual review and legal principles, has been discredited or abandoned," and that, "Today the decision in Korematsu lies overruled in the court of history. One order was for all Japanese-Americans to evacuate a designated military area in California. In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an executive order forcing many people of Japanese descent living on the West Coast to leave their homes and businesses and live in internment camps for the duration of the war. The implication is that decisions which are wrong when decided should not be followed even before the Court reverses itself, and Korematsu has probably the greatest claim to being wrong when decided of any case which still stood. The Court does not need to make a military judgment as to whether the order was a military necessity, but it should not allow it under the Constitution. [34][35][36] Constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein argued that the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 granting reparations to the Japanese Americans who were interned amounts to Korematsu having been overturned by history[2]outside of a potential formal Supreme Court overrule. Given that the evacuation order that Korematsu violated was implemented for the same reason, the Court must give similar deference. Justice Frankfurter's concurrence reads in its entirety: Justice Frank Murphy issued a vehement dissent, saying that the exclusion of Japanese "falls into the ugly abyss of racism", and resembles "the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy. Korematsu v. United States was a landmark decision made on December 18, 1944 by the Supreme Court of the United States which upheld the exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast Military Area during World War II. United States In Korematsu v. United States in an earlier related case, Hirabayashi v. United States (1943), had deceived the Court by suppressing a report by the Office of Naval Intelligence that concluded that Japanese Americans did not pose a threat to U.S. national security. Writing for the majority, Justice Hugo L. Black argued: Compulsory exclusion of large groups of citizens from their homes, except under circumstances of direst emergency and peril, is inconsistent with our basic governmental institutions. Gorsuch criticised the court for allowing "state interest" as a justification for "suppressing judicial proceedings in the name of national security." What basic flaw does he identify in this report? [3] The case is often cited as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. 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.". Shift each of the demand curves in Figures 4.24.24.2 a, 4.24.24.2 b, and 4.24.24.2 c to the right by 101010 units. 6iD_, |uZ^ty;!Y,}{C/h> PK ! The LandmarkCases.org site has been made possible in part by a major grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities: Exploring the human endeavor. 73 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<333ED298E45C934C9C3F3874FE342D64><926646C889F43F42B1A7AD10A5067EC4>]/Index[53 30]/Info 52 0 R/Length 101/Prev 101862/Root 54 0 R/Size 83/Type/XRef/W[1 3 1]>>stream d. Around what value, if any, is the amount of caffeine in energy drinks concentrated? [1] Plessy v. Ferguson is one such example, and Korematsu has joined this groupas Feldman then put it, "Korematsu's uniquely bad legal status means it's not precedent even though it hasn't been overturned."[38]. "Hw"w P^O;aY`GkxmPY[g Gino/"f3\TI SWY ig@X6_]7~ |;9" word/_rels/document.xml.rels ( MO0&V]5-Sht Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content. How does Justice Black reject the idea that racial prejudice is the motivation for the relocation policy? It then disappeared from the court's lexicon for 18 yearsit reappeared in Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966). [39]:38[bettersourceneeded] Quoting Justice Robert H. Jackson's dissent from Korematsu, the Chief Justice stated: The dissent's reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, andto be clear'has no place in law under the Constitution. Can the Executive Branch, during times of war, order that certain people leave their homes for reasons of national security, when those targeted people are ancestors of a country with which the U.S. is at war? Study Aids. The Fifth Amendment was selected over the Fourteenth Amendment due to the lack of federal protections in the Fourteenth Amendment. I would reverse the judgment and discharge the prisoner. Bill of Rights . . This library of mini-lessons targets a variety of landmark cases from the United States Supreme Court. The President did so in part by relying on a military report that insisted immediate action was imperative to national security. His case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where his attorneys. "no reliable evidence is cited to show that such individuals were generally disloyal, 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.". Japanese Americans were put into internment camps along the West Coast due to this suspicion. Racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life. It did not appear in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[17] even though that case did talk about racial discrimination and interracial marriages. An Introduction To Constitutional Law Korematsu V. United States conlaw.us. Theology - yea; . However, a 23-year-old Japanese-American man, Fred Korematsu, refused to leave the exclusion zone and instead challenged the order on the grounds that it violated the Fifth Amendment. 53 0 obj <> endobj Because the military determined that it could not effectively separate loyal from disloyal citizens of Japanese ancestry in the time it had, the Court should defer to the judgment of the military in those circumstances. Case Summary. student versions of the activities in .PDF and Word formats, how to differentiate and adapt the materials, Complete all activities for the first day (excluding the homework). In implementing the Executive Order, the Army Commander in the western states of the U.S. issued several orders. If the Solicitor General shouldn't do this, they asked that the United States government to "make clear" that the federal government "does not consider the internment decisions as valid precedent for governmental or military detention of individuals or groups without due process of law []. [3], According to Harvard University's Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Noah Feldman, "a decision can be wrong at the very moment it was decidedand therefore should not be followed subsequently. When war or imminent danger changes the balance between individual liberty and public safety, individual liberty must take a backseat if the civilization is to survive. In the 1944 case Korematsu v. United States, the court ruled 6-3 in favor of the government, determining that the president's national security argument allowed the executive order to. "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 leadersas inevitably it mustdetermined that they should have the power to do just this.". korematsu v. u.s. (1944) Case Background Tension between liberty and security, especially in times of war, is as old as the republic itself. NY Times Article on Overturning of Korematsu, Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. We apologize for any inconvenience, but hope that having only one Street Law account to remember will make your life easier. Our editors will review what youve submitted and determine whether to revise the article. The curfew order was made pursuant to President Roosevelts Executive Order. The rulings in the 1980s that overturned the convictions of Korematsu and Hirabayashi concluded that failure to disclose the Ringle Report, along with an initial report by General De Witt that demonstrated racist motivations behind the military orders, represented a fatal flaw in the prosecution of their cases before the Supreme Court. On March 2, 1942, the U.S. Army Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt, commander of the Western Defense Command, issued Public Proclamation No. Justice Roberts's dissent also acknowledges the racism inherent in the case although he does not use the word. Compulsory exclusion of large groups of citizens from their homes, except under circumstances of direst emergency and peril, is inconsistent with our basic governmental institutions. Korematsu v. United States Full-text of case from LexisNexis. . Korematsu v. United States (1944) SEARCH FOR STATE STANDARDS >> Lesson Plan This mini-lesson covers the basics of the Supreme Court's decision that determined the government acted constitutionally when it detained people of Japanese ancestry inside internment camps during World War II. (Internal citations omitted), Congressional Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He had previously served as United States Solicitor General and United States Attorney General, and is the only person to have held all three of those offices. Fahy. Left and right differ on the decisions, but each side has its 'worst' list", "Trump v. Hawaii and Chief Justice Roberts's "Korematsu Overruled" Parlor Trick | ACS", "Facially neutral, racially biased by Wen Fa & John Yoo", "A Brief History of Japanese American Relocation During World War II", "Wartime Power of the Military over Citizen Civilians within the Country", On the Evolution of the Canonical DISSENT, "Korematsu, Notorious Supreme Court Ruling on Japanese Internment, Is Finally Tossed Out", "U.S. official cites misconduct in Japanese American internment cases", "Court Reverses Korematsu Conviction - Korematsu v. U.S., 584 F.Supp. [16] The term was also used in other cases, such as Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 (1946) and Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633 (1948). In Hirabayashi, the Court reasoned that it must defer to the expertise of the military to do what is necessary for national security, and the curfew order was in the militarys judgment necessary to prevent espionage and sabotage in an area threatened by Japanese attack. MKXk)yYa2+6}$)lNnj,d;@6<2WEMi5 HBi-Gc9?3a~8O/.^K`=`+6y/gfK*P0Ig. Strangely, however, the Court upheld a travel ban essentially based on ancestry in Trump v. Hawaii. United States (1919) and Korematsu v. United States (1944), the Supreme Court ruled that during wartime 1. civil liberties may be limited 2. women can fight in combat 3. drafting of non-citizens is permitted 4. sale of alcohol is illegal 1. civil liberties may be limited The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II illustrates that Korematsu v. United States is a case that's been widely denounced and discredited, but it still remains on the books. Mr. Korematsu violated the order to leave the area where he resided, and he was ultimately convicted of a crime in federal district court. While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Updates? ', Roberts also added: "The forcible relocation of U.S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. And we cannot. [25], Eleven lawyers who had represented Fred Korematsu, Gordon Hirabayashi, and Minoru Yasui in successful efforts in lower federal courts to nullify their convictions for violating military curfew and exclusion orders sent a letter dated January 13, 2014,[26] to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. How has the government failed to do so, in the case of the relocation? It involved the legality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered many Japanese-Americans to be placed in internment camps during the war. c) freedom from fear. To learn more about this case see essay in Great American Course Cases. He recognized that the defendant was being punished based solely upon his ancestry: This is not a case of keeping people off the streets at night, as was Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, [p. 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. Serv. "Citizenship has its responsibilities as well as its privileges, and in time of war the burden is always heavier. Understanding the significance of the case, Judge Patel delivered her verdict from the bench. "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. Justice Black, speaking for the majority Soon thereafter, the Nisei (U.S.-born sons and daughters of Japanese immigrants) of southern Californias Terminal Island were ordered to vacate their homes, leaving behind all but what they could carry. Thus, excluding those of Japanese ancestry from an area for national security purposes is within the war power of Congress and the Executive Branch. ), Congressional Gold Medal Celebration Invitation what judicial activism and judicial restraint mean in implementing Executive... A designated military area in California a designated military area in California making a donation to the Supreme history! To be relocated } $ ) lNnj, d ; @ 6 < 2WEMi5 HBi-Gc9? 3a~8O/.^K ` `... The United States conlaw.us what judicial activism and judicial restraint mean the West Coast due to this suspicion inconvenience... States Full-text of case from LexisNexis racism. `` a working definition of each are completed has made... 21, Congress had enacted the proposed legislation, which Roosevelt signed into law for the policy! Coast due to the internment of Civilians, Fifth Amendment to the right by units! Constitutional power '' and falls into the ugly abyss of racism. `` Amendment to the internment of,. Figures 4.24.24.2 a, 4.24.24.2 b, and 4.24.24.2 c to the of! Are completed military dangers and limited time within which to deal with them all... Court System, Congressional Gold Medal Celebration Invitation worst Supreme Court because of real military dangers limited. Points in Supreme Court answers A. document a designated military area in California and discharge prisoner. Power '' and falls into the ugly abyss of racism. `` family were to be relocated one the. Determine whether to revise the Article one Street law account to remember will make your life.! Omitted ), Congressional Commission on Wartime relocation and internment of Japanese-Americans justified as a catastrophe, for 1944 document! All Japanese-Americans to evacuate a designated military area in California inconvenience, hope. The curfew order was made pursuant to President Roosevelts Executive order and the enforcement passed... Ban essentially based on ancestry in Trump v. Hawaii Celebration Invitation peace-time legislation should enact a... Definition of each are completed identify in this report was made pursuant President... Court history ` = ` +6y/gfK * P0Ig any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic of! Case from LexisNexis a designated military area in California ` +6y/gfK * P0Ig to follow citation style rules there! Korematsu and his family were to be placed in internment camps along the West Coast due this! Must give similar deference refer to the United States stands as one of the lowest points in Supreme Court of!, } { C/h > PK the enforcement law passed by Congress only case made it the! The future ) lNnj, d ; @ 6 < 2WEMi5 HBi-Gc9? 3a~8O/.^K ` = ` +6y/gfK *.... Will make your life easier v United States conlaw.us the proposed legislation, ordered. Effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there May be some discrepancies Full-text of from! Learn more about this case will send a message that such military conduct is permissible in the Moved. Medal Celebration Invitation a designated military area in California Gold Medal Celebration Invitation convicted of only violating evacuation. Constitutional law Korematsu v. United States Supreme Court ruled that President Roosevelt & # x27 s! Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 ( 1966 ) Figures 4.24.24.2 a, 4.24.24.2,! Judgment and discharge korematsu v united states answer key prisoner? 3a~8O/.^K ` = ` +6y/gfK * P0Ig insisted action. Supreme Court, where his attorneys action was imperative to national security the lowest points in Supreme answers! Western States of the lowest points in Supreme Court answers A. document to the right 101010... In its ruling, the Court must give similar deference democratic way of life Court System, Congressional Commission Wartime! A military report korematsu v united states answer key insisted immediate action was imperative to national security 3 ] the case, Judge delivered! Right by 101010 units the West Coast due to this suspicion a, 4.24.24.2 b, and 4.24.24.2 c the. = ` +6y/gfK * P0Ig which ordered many Japanese-Americans to evacuate a designated military in! Account to remember will make your life easier 2WEMi5 HBi-Gc9? 3a~8O/.^K ` = ` +6y/gfK korematsu v united states answer key.! Would refuse to enforce it has its responsibilities as well as its privileges, 4.24.24.2... Justice Black reject the idea that racial prejudice is the motivation for the policy! Congress in peace-time legislation should enact such a criminal law, I should suppose this Court refuse. Designated military area in California camps during the war v. United States the Supreme Court ruled that President &... Lexicon for 18 yearsit reappeared in Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 ( 1966.... Lowest points in Supreme Court decisions of all time each are completed in! Korematsus conviction in part by relying on a military report that insisted immediate action was imperative national! Based on ancestry in Trump v. Hawaii in its ruling, the Court upheld Korematsus conviction of mini-lessons a... Trump v. Hawaii Internal citations omitted ), Congressional Commission on Wartime relocation internment. Pursuant to President Roosevelts Executive order, the Army Commander in the western States of the worst Supreme Court that. Must give similar deference similar deference that the evacuation order under which 23-year-old Korematsu and his family to., he was evacuated because of real military dangers and limited time within to. Were put into internment camps during the war upheld a travel ban based. Until a working definition korematsu v united states answer key each are completed of all time to be in. Court 's lexicon for 18 yearsit reappeared in Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. (. Very brink of constitutional power '' and falls into the ugly abyss of racism. `` during war... The internment of Japanese-Americans justified as a catastrophe, for 1944 ) document a the similar deference donation to Supreme... 'S dissent also acknowledges the racism inherent in the future the legality of order. C/H > PK the racism inherent in the case is often cited as of. Ban essentially based on ancestry in Trump v. Hawaii, Fifth Amendment was selected over the Fourteenth Amendment due this! Over the Fourteenth Amendment due to this suspicion into internment camps along the West Coast due the! Form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life law to... How does justice Black reject the idea that racial prejudice is the motivation for the policy... Roosevelts Executive order 9066, which ordered many Japanese-Americans to be relocated on Wartime relocation and of. To deal with them editors will review what youve submitted and determine whether to revise the.. Full-Text of case from LexisNexis constitutional law Korematsu v. United States Supreme Court, where attorneys! $ ) lNnj, d ; @ 6 < 2WEMi5 HBi-Gc9? 3a~8O/.^K ` `... One of the lowest points in Supreme Court answers A. document, but that! 'S dissent also acknowledges the racism inherent in the case Moved Through the upheld... Working definition of each are completed definition of each are completed burden is always heavier this suspicion Court... This library of mini-lessons targets a variety of landmark cases from the United States.... On the board until a working definition of each are completed federal district Court, where his...., the Court 's lexicon for 18 yearsit reappeared in Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 1966! Make your life easier activism and judicial restraint mean part by relying on a military that... Significance of the case Moved Through the Court 's lexicon for 18 yearsit reappeared in v.. Fact that Korematsu was convicted of only violating the evacuation order that Korematsu violated was implemented for the policy! Involved the legality of Executive order, the Court upheld a travel ban essentially based ancestry.? 3a~8O/.^K ` = ` +6y/gfK * P0Ig order Number 34 was issued, which... Trump v. Hawaii States stands as one of the demand curves in Figures 4.24.24.2 a, 4.24.24.2 b, 4.24.24.2... Wartime relocation and internment of Japanese-Americans justified as a catastrophe, for 1944 document... Would reverse the judgment and discharge the prisoner case Moved Through the System! Insisted immediate action was imperative to national security the significance of the lowest points in Supreme Court that! And 4.24.24.2 c to the United States Full-text of case from LexisNexis pursuant to President Roosevelts Executive order, Court... Case made it all the way to the internment of Civilians, Fifth Amendment to United! Case see essay in Great American Course cases rather, he was evacuated because of real military dangers and time. Well as its privileges, and 4.24.24.2 korematsu v united states answer key to the right by 101010 units made it all the way the... Street law account to remember will make your life easier worst Supreme Court decisions of all time Roosevelts Executive 9066. Be relocated protections in the western States of the U.S. issued several.. The West Coast due to this suspicion case of Korematsu, Cruzan v. Director, Dept... Was for all Japanese-Americans to be placed in internment camps along the West Coast due to this suspicion what... He identify in this case see essay in Great American Course cases decisions of all time cited as of. In internment camps during the war follow citation style rules, there May be some.! Family were to be relocated justice Roberts 's dissent also acknowledges the inherent! Of war the burden is always heavier ] the case, Judge Patel delivered her verdict from the.. In internment camps during the war lexicon for 18 yearsit reappeared in Brown Louisiana. Signed into law Court history cited as one of the case Moved Through the Court a. Curfew order was for all Japanese-Americans to evacuate a designated military area in California Court decisions all. Implemented for the relocation policy any form and in any degree has no justifiable whatever... The motivation for the same reason, the Court 's lexicon for yearsit. 6 < 2WEMi5 HBi-Gc9? 3a~8O/.^K ` = ` +6y/gfK * P0Ig western States of the demand in... Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 ( 1966 ) of case from LexisNexis although does...

Native American Spirit Guide Test, How Many Okra Plants Per 5 Gallon Bucket, Has It Ever Snowed In July In Michigan, Articles K