United States v. Bland

283 U.S. 636, 51 S. Ct. 569, 75 L. Ed. 1319, 1931 U.S. LEXIS 171
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMay 25, 1931
Docket505
StatusPublished
Cited by43 cases

This text of 283 U.S. 636 (United States v. Bland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Bland, 283 U.S. 636, 51 S. Ct. 569, 75 L. Ed. 1319, 1931 U.S. LEXIS 171 (1931).

Opinions

Mr. Justice~'Sutherland

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is ruled by the decision just announced in United States v. Macintosh, ante, p. 605.

The respondent, an applicant for citizenship, was a native of Canada and came to the United States in 1914. She had duly declared her intention to become a citizen. She refused to take the oath of allegiance prescribed by the statute to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against ail enemies, etc., except with the written interpolation of the words, “as far as.my conscience as a Christian will allow.” It is unnecessary to review her testimony. The only difference between the position she took, and that taken by the respondent in the Macintosh case, is that in addition to refusing positively to bear arms in defense of the United States under any [637]*637circumstances, she required an actual amendment of the oath as already stated, instead of reserving the point by parol. As we said in. the Macintosh case, this is a circumstance which has no distinguishing effect. The substance of the oath has been definitely prescribed by Congress. The words of the statute do not admit of the qualification upon which the applicant insists. For the court to allow it to be made is to amend the act and thereby usurp the power of legislation vested in another, department of the government.

The examiner reported against the applicant, and the court of first instance, after a full hearing, denied the application. We think its decree was right.

The decree of the court of appeals is reversed and that of the district court is affirmed.

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

Related

Parker v. Levy
417 U.S. 733 (Supreme Court, 1974)
Ramadass Naturalization Petition
284 A.2d 133 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1971)
In Re Petition for Naturalization of Matz
296 F. Supp. 927 (E.D. California, 1969)
In Re Naturalization of Weitzman
284 F. Supp. 514 (D. Minnesota, 1968)
In re Petition for Naturalization of Meghnot
238 F. Supp. 479 (E.D. Michigan, 1965)
Monroe v. Pape
365 U.S. 167 (Supreme Court, 1961)
Park v. Employment Security Commission
94 N.W.2d 407 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1959)
Hanauer v. Elkins, Pres., U. of Md.
141 A.2d 903 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1958)
In Re Jost
256 P.2d 71 (California Court of Appeal, 1953)
Jost v. United States Department of Labor
256 P.2d 71 (California Court of Appeal, 1953)
Petition of Plywacki
107 F. Supp. 593 (D. Hawaii, 1952)
Katz v. Farber
72 A.2d 862 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1950)
Application of Wiebe
82 F. Supp. 130 (D. Nebraska, 1949)
Girouard v. United States
328 U.S. 61 (Supreme Court, 1946)
In Re Swenson
61 F. Supp. 376 (D. Oregon, 1945)
United States v. Girouard
149 F.2d 760 (First Circuit, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 U.S. 636, 51 S. Ct. 569, 75 L. Ed. 1319, 1931 U.S. LEXIS 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bland-scotus-1931.