Abstract
In the case of Korematsu v. United Stales, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that excluding Japanese‐Americans from the East Coast following the Bombing of Pearl Harbor was not unconstitutional. This essay extends Kenneth Burkes brief dramatistic analysis of the case to show that the chief rhetorical work of this and other judicial opinions involves the strategic representation of a plethora of acts‐from the acts that give rise to the case to the judicial act of decision itself. Such representations are complex because they are constrained by the “grammar of motives” both within and between the represented acts.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
