About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

21 New Eng. L. Rev. 545 (1985-1986)
Conscientious Objection: A Constitutional Right

handle is hein.journals/newlr21 and id is 557 raw text is: Conscientious Objection: A Constitutional Right Fredrick L. Brown*, Stephen M. Kohn** & Michael D. Kohn*** I. THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION Thousands of conscientious objectors (C.O.s) to military service have been indicted, fined and imprisoned for following their consciences instead of the draft laws. Although many C.O.s still face this same dilemma, the Su- preme Court has consistently avoided directly addressing the issue of a consti- tutional right to conscientious objection.' * Associate Justice of the Appeals Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; A.B., Harvard University, 1954; L.L.B., Harvard University, 1967. ** B.S. Boston University, 1979; M.A. Brown University, 1981; J.D. Northeastern Univer- sity School of Law, 1984; Clinical Director, Government Accountability Project; Adjunct Profes- sor of Law, Antioch School of Law. *** B.S. Rutgers University, 1979; J.D. Antioch School of Law, 1985; Staff Attorney, Gov- ernment Accountability Project; Adjunct Professor of Law, Antioch School of Law. I. Although some Justices have urged the Supreme Court to consider this issue, see, e.g., Ehlert v. United States, 402 U.S. 99, 113-15 (1971) (Douglas, J., dissenting), the Court has consistently refused, see, e.g., United States v. Sisson, 399 U.S. 267, 288 (1970); Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437, 461 n.23 (1971), and Johnson v. Robinson, 415 U.S. 361, 375 n.14 (1974). Thus, in Gillette, the Court, addressing the issue of selective C.O. (i.e., whether a C.O. had to oppose all wars or could gain exemption from fighting in a particular war he felt was unjust) chose explicitly to reject considering an independent constitutional right to C.O. See 401 U.S. at 461 n.23. The Court's conclusion that section 6() of the Selective Service Act exempted only persons opposed to participation in war of any form and not those who objected to fighting in a particularly unjust war was based solely on statutory construction. Id. at 441-50. In terms of a free exercise clause argument, Gillette simply held that a political decision based on the merits of a particular war did not rise to the level of a religious or moral decision based against all war. The Court held that disallowing selective C.O. did not work a penalty against any theologi- cal position, because selective objectors were not morally opposed to killing or warfare. Id. at 462. Likewise, Johnson also refused to address the issue of a consitutional right to conscientious objection. 415 U.S. at 375 n.14. Johnson considered the issue of whether a C.O. who performed alternative service was entitled to veteran's benefits. Id. at 374. The Court held that veteran's benefits are neither designed to nor in fact do interfere with the free exercise of religion. Veteran's benefits, the Court reasoned, are designed to promote manpower recruitment into the armed ser-

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most