United States v. Gidmark
| Decision Date | 29 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 26253.,26253. |
| Citation | 440 F.2d 773 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David John GIDMARK, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Nathan R. Zahm (argued), of Somers, Fox & Kallen, Santa Monica, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Robert C. Bonner, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Crim. Div., J. Kent Steele, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, WRIGHT and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
Gidmark appeals from his conviction for failure to report for induction into the armed services in violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462.
Appellant's sole contention is that the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against involuntary servitude precludes requiring him to serve in the armed services.
His contention is frivolous. In an unbroken line of cases the courts have held that conscription for military service or civilian work in lieu thereof does not constitute involuntary servitude. Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366, 38 S.Ct. 159, 62 L.Ed. 349 (1918); Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 38 S.Ct. 166, 62 L.Ed. 358 (1918); O'Connor v. United States, 415 F.2d 1110 (9th Cir. 1969) and cases cited.
We affirm the conviction and order the mandate to issue forthwith.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roe v. Unocal Corp.
..."conscription, for military service or civilian work in lieu thereof does not constitute involuntary servitude." United States v. Gidmark, 440 F.2d 773, 774 (9th Cir.1971); Klubnikin v. United States, 227 F.2d 87, 90 (9th Cir. 1955) (rejecting plaintiff's argument that performing civilian s......
-
Calhoun v. United States, Civ. No. 76-937-E.
...decedent's status as an enlistee, it is clear that even conscripted service does not violate the Thirteenth Amendment. United States v. Gidmark, 440 F.2d 773 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 868, 92 S.Ct. 141, 30 L.Ed.2d 112 (1971). Historically, the prohibition against "cruel and unusual......
-
Richardson v. Becerra
...necessarily mean that the citizen, obliged to comply, has been subjected to involuntary servitude. See, e.g., United States v. Gidmark, 440 F.2d 773, 774 (9th Cir. 1971) ("In an unbroken line of cases the courts have held that conscription for military service or civilian work in lieu there......
-
United States v. Lumsden
...does not constitute involuntary servitude, Arver v. United States, 1918, 245 U.S. 366, 38 S.Ct. 159, 62 L.Ed. 349; United States v. Gidmark, 9 Cir., 1971, 440 F.2d 773, nor does it violate due process, United States v. Butler, 6 Cir., 1968, 389 F.2d Affirmed. The mandate shall issue forthwi......