Frederic Wayne Etcheverry v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Frederic Wayne Etcheverry v. United States

320 F.2d 873, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4662

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 11, 1963

Docket18465_1

StatusPublished

Cited by30 cases

This text of 320 F.2d 873 (Frederic Wayne Etcheverry v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frederic Wayne Etcheverry v. United States, 320 F.2d 873, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4662 (9th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 F.2d 873, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frederic-wayne-etcheverry-v-united-states-ca9-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack