JAMES DANIEL LOEWING, 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 Universal Military Training and Service Act, as applied, does not violate the First Amendment, even for a conscientious objector whose religious beliefs conflict with required civilian work.
Appellant, a Jehovah Witness classified as a conscientious objector, was found guilty of violating the Universal Military Training and Service Act for…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of Universal Military Training And Service Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In a trial to the court, appellant was found guilty of violating, the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 50 App.U.S.C. § 462, by failure to report for civilian work to which he was assigned. Appellate is a member of the Jehovah Witness sect and was classified as a conscientious objector. He raises no objection to his classification. The government does not question the sincerity of his beliefs.
The appellant claims that, as applied to him, the Act violates the First Amendment. His position is that performance of the required civilian work will prevent him from practicing his religion and will exclude him from the hope of eternal salvation if Armageddon should occur while he is so engaged. He argues that the First Amendment insulates him from a statute which requires him either to suffer imprisonment or to compromise his religious beliefs.
The Act was passed pursuant to the war power of Congress and its constitutionality has been repeatedly sustained. See United States v. Nugent, 346 U.S. 1, 9, 73 S.Ct. 991, 97 L.Ed. 1417, and other cases infra. The constitution does not exempt a person from service in the armed forces because of religious beliefs. Selective Draft Law Cases [Arver v. United States], 245 U.S. 366, 390, 38 S.Ct. 159, 62 L.Ed. 349; Imboden v. United States, 6 Cir., 194 F. 2d 508, 513, cert. denied 343 U.S. 957, 72 S.Ct. 1052, 96 L.Ed. 1357; Etcheverry v. United States, 9 Cir., 320 F. 2d 873, cert. denied 375 U.S. 930, 84 S.Ct. 331, 11 L.Ed.2d 263. Absent a constitutional right to exemption, the appellant has no constitutional grounds for challenging the conditional exemption which requires him to do civilian work. Roodenko v. United States, 10 Cir., 147 F. 2d 752, 754, cert. denied 324 U.S. 860, 65 S.Ct. 867, 89 L.Ed.
1418. The stated principles were not changed by United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733. The Court was there concerned with the application of the criteria established by the Act. An individual has the right to determine and hold his own religious beliefs but, when they collide with the power of Congress, the latter prevails.
The appellant offered, and the district court rejected, expert testimony covering the tenets of his religious sect. The government has not questioned the teachings of appellant’s religious faith or his sincerity in adhering to them. The offer added nothing and was properly refused. O’Moore v. United States, 5 Cir., 370 F. 2d 916, 917.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Hobbs, 450 F.2d 935 (10th Cir. 1971)
-
United States v. Milligan, 457 F.2d 916 (8th Cir. 1972)
-
United States v. Burns, 450 F.2d 44 (10th Cir. 1971)
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1965)
- Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (U.S. 1918)
- United States v. Nugent, 346 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1953)
- Imboden v. United States, 194 F.2d 508 (6th Cir. 1952)
- Frederic Wayne Etcheverry v. United States, 320 F.2d 873 (9th Cir. 1963)
- Gen. Armature & Mfg. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 343 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1952)
- Kimmell v. White, 343 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1952)
- Roodenko v. United States, 147 F.2d 752 (10th Cir. 1944)
- Meurer Steel Barrel Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 324 U.S. 860 (U.S. 1946)
- Roodenko v. United States, 324 U.S. 860 (U.S. 1945)