FREDERIC WAYNE ETCHEVERRY, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the constitutionality of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, including peacetime conscription and conscientious objector provisions, has been previously resolved against the appellant by binding prior decisions.
Appellant was convicted of violating the Universal Military Training and Service Act. He appealed, raising issues concerning the Act's constitutionali…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
BROWNING, Circuit Judge.
The only issues raised by appellant on this appeal from his conviction of violating the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix § 462, concern the constitutionality of the Act. These issues have been resolved against appellant by prior decisions of this Court, binding upon us.
Appellant asserts that peacetime conscription is beyond the power conferred upon Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and that it deprives appellant of his liberty in violation of the Fifth Amendment; appellant distinguishes Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366, 38 S.Ct. 159, 62 L.Ed. 349 (1918), and cases which follow it, as applicable only to draft in time of war. This Court sustained the constitutionality of peacetime conscription in Richter v. United States, 181 F. 2d 591 (9th Cir. 1950).
Appellant asserts that the provisions of the Universal Military Training and Service Act relating to conscientious objectors (50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 456(j)) violate the First Amendment, in that they are laws “respecting an establishment of religion,” and discriminate against those who do not believe in a Supreme Being. This Court held to the contrary in Clark v. United States, 236 F. 2d 13 (9th Cir. 1956), and George v. United States, 196 F. 2d 445 (9th Cir. 1952).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
In re Rule 9.331, 416 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1982)
-
Simmons v. United States, 406 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1969)
-
Elliott Ashton Welsh, II v. United States, 404 F.2d 1078 (9th Cir. 1968)
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (U.S. 1918)
- George v. United States, 196 F.2d 445 (9th Cir. 1952)
- Richter v. United States, 181 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1950)
- Clark v. United States, 236 F.2d 13 (9th Cir. 1956)