Howze v. United States, 16378.
Decision Date | 28 December 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 16378.,16378. |
Citation | 272 F.2d 146 |
Parties | Burl Melton HOWZE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
J. B. Tietz, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., Robert D. Hornbaker and Robert John Jensen, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before STEPHENS, ORR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
The appellant has been convicted of failing to remain in employment after he was assigned civilian work upon being classified I-O (conscientious objector) by his local draft board. Title 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 462. He appeals his conviction on three grounds: That he should have been classified II-C (essential farm worker); that the proof did not conform to the charge; and, that the order of the Draft Board to perform civilian labor was unconstitutional.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roe v. Unocal Corp.
...in lieu of military service was unconstitutional); Badger v. United States, 322 F.2d 902, 908 (9th Cir.1963) (same); Howze v. United States, 272 F.2d 146 (9th Cir.1959) (government has the power to enforce "civilian labor draft" even during peacetime); see also, Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 32......
-
United States v. Thorn
...in the Thirteenth Amendment. In rejecting the defendant's argument, the Court quoted from its earlier decision in Howze v. United States, 272 F.2d 146, 148 (9 Cir., 1959)—`The appellant also argues that the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits a civilian labor draft in peaceti......
-
United States v. Boardman, No. 7355.
...a total exemption based on individual belief, such as the potential threat to the morale of the armed forces Howze v. United States, 272 F.2d 146, 148 (9th Cir. 1959), or the problem of distinguishing self-serving claims from beliefs which deserve the title "conscientious". Weightman v. Uni......
-
O'CONNOR v. United States
...supra; Atherton v. United States, supra. An assignment to civilian work does not violate the Thirteenth Amendment, Howze v. United States, (9 Cir. 1959) 272 F.2d 146; United States v. Holmes, (7 Cir. 1967) 387 F.2d 781, cert. denied 391 U.S. 936, 88 S.Ct. 1835, 20 L.Ed.2d 856 (1968); Badger......
-
Specific Performance of Enlistment Contracts
...Minn. 1969) (holding that the draft law does not violate the Thirteenth Amendment, even during times of peace); Howze v. United States, 272 F.2d 146, 148 (9th Cir. 1959) (“The power of Congress to raise armies, and to take effective measures to preserve their efficiency, is not limited by e......