Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the exemption from the military draft for conscientious objectors could be reserved not only for those professing conformity with the moral directives of a supreme being but also for those whose views on war derived from a "sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its ...
The decision is still in effect and actively mentioned as an example of a conscientious objector issue by the United States Selective Service to this day. [8] The case has also been brought up by leaders in other faiths, such as the Mormon faith, [9] in discussions about the issue of conscientious objector status in their faiths.
Although conscientious objection was not initially part of the draft law, individuals could provide a substitute or pay a commutation fee of $300 ($4,674.34 in 2017 [8]) to hire one. [7]: 3 A July 4, 1864, amendment to the draft law ended commutation except for those draftees who were "conscientiously opposed to the bearing of arms."
Douglas goes on further to claim "There is no doubt that the views of Gillette are sincere, genuine, and profound. The District Court in the present case faced squarely the issue presented in Sisson, and, being unable to distinguish the case on the facts, refused to follow Sisson." Douglas continues on to extend the right to judge a war as just ...
Cox v. United States, 332 U.S. 442 (1947), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States found that courts have only limited scope of review over a Selective Service Board's classification of a Jehovah's Witness as a conscientious objector rather than a minister. [1] Justice Reed delivered the opinion.
[2] [3] [23] The Court incorporated Welsh v. United States, in which the Court had ruled that "moral and ethical objection to war was as valid as religious objection, thus broadening the qualifications." [24] Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong provide an account of the development of the decision in their 1979 book The Brethren.
An informed consent clause, although allowing medical professionals not to perform procedures against their conscience, does not allow professionals to give fraudulent information to deter a patient from obtaining such a procedure (such as lying about the risks involved in an abortion to deter one from obtaining one) in order to impose one's belief using deception.
An approved conscientious objection in any case then meant that an applicant was required by law to perform Wehrersatzdienst. Complete objection both to military and replacement service was known as Totalverweigerung ; it was illegal and could be punished with a fine or a suspended custodial sentence.