The Cavalier daily. :: Thursday, April 3, 1969 :: University of Virginia Library

Selective Service may soon
undergo its severest re-evaluation
since the first act was introduced in
1917. Federal District Judge,
Charles E. Wysanski of the Boston
district circuit declared the Selective
Service Regulations pertaining
to Conscientious Objectors unconstitutional
in a decision Tuesday,
April 1.

The essence of his decision was
that the Federal government, in
recognizing the validity of religiously
trained Conscientious Objectors,
was violating the first amendment
which prohibits the federal
government from establishing a
religion. He felt that by discriminating
against atheists, agnostics, and
others who for moral or philosophical
reasons rejected military
participation the federal government
had recognized and established
a religious test for a federal act.

Mr. Wysanski's decision was not
the first of this type. Before the
implementation of the 1967 Selective
Service Act, a Supreme Court
case, U.S. vs. Seeger, declared the
Supreme Being clause of the Conscientious
Objectors form unconstitutional.
The new act, however,
circumvented this decision by
removing the Supreme Being clause
and replacing it with the phrase,
"by reason of religious training and
beliefs."

"Fascinating Results"

At that time the legislators made
it clear that they would not accept
claims which were based on beliefs
outside of the realm of those
connected with established religions.
Indeed, for many years the
system only recognized the claims
of historically peaceful sect
(Quakers, Amish, Jehovah's
Witnesses). Recently groups such as
the Universal life church, and
others have been denied in claiming
either Ministerial or C.O. deferments.

The import of Mr. Wysanski's
decision surpasses all previous
attempts to recognize the claims of
those, who for whatever reason,
reject the concept of war in any
form. If confirmed by the Supreme
Court this decision could have
fascinating results.

Affirmation of the right of all
men to object to war on the basis
of conscience for religious or
philosophical or morally justifiable
reasons would foul the present
system unimaginably. Probably
there would be an immediate
increase in the number of registrants
claiming an I-O status.
Pursuant to this Mr. Wysanski
stated in an article in the New York
Times that, "recognition of individual
conscience will make it easy"
to claim and substantiate a I-O
claim but he felt, in regard to the
validity of the claims, "Often it is
harder to detect a fraudulent
adherent to a religious creed than
to recognize a sincere moral protestant.
We all can discern
Thoreau's integrity more quickly
than we might detect some churchman's
hypocrisy."

Certainly many registrants who
might otherwise have been drafted
have hid behind their established
faiths without really supporting the
beliefs, while many truly moral
objectors have been imprisoned or
have fled.

Confound Appellate

Thus those who are presently
serving sentences for draft evasion
or draft resistances will, if the
Supreme Court upholds Mr.
Wysanski's decision, have cause for a
reopening thousands of cases in
federal courts. The resulting litigation
could confound the appellate
system in this country for years.
Furthermore, the government could
probably count on thousands of
damage suits for loss of income and
defamation of character, which has
been concomitant with a sentence
of draft resistance (due primarily to
the government's hard line on
violators of the military manpower
acts).

Consideration must also be given
to the nearly 50,000 Americans
who have emigrated from the
United States because of the
present provisions of the system.
Again, the government will have to
drop litigation against these people,
for they will certainly have a
justifiable opportunity to be reimbursed
for having their first amendment
rights violated.

"Reopen Cases"

Further there is the problem of
those citizens, who, feeling that
they had no hope for a claim of
Conscientious objection because
they held non-religious beliefs,
acquiesced to the draft and who are
presently in the service against their
moral beliefs. While the argument
could be raised that their depth of
conviction was not demonstrable
by their action (namely allowing
themselves to be drafted) certainly
because of the nature of past
governmental pressure these men
ought to be allowed to reopen their
cases.

But most of all, and of primary
importance, is the release of those
prisoners who have gone to jail as
silent protest to the violation of
their rights, who have totally
destroyed any future they might
have had (One might remember
that a draft resister is re-registered
upon his release from prison, and
can incur the same penalty for
refusing to comply again, even
though no man has been sentenced
more than twice consecutively.
Draft resistors are the only felons
who can still be drafted.) Mr. Nixon
should further undertake compensation
for the time spent in prison
and the loss of reputation.

President Nixon in order to be
consistent with his previous position
on the Selective Service
System, could do much to alleviate
the problems which have be
enumerated. He could, for example
demand the reopening of any
member of the military who claims
that he was drafted or enlisted
against the feelings of his conscience.

Mr. Nixon could declare a
general amnesty for all of those
who have flown the country
because their claims were not
recognized. Certainly their willingness
to risk imprisonment and make
the effort to begin a new life in a
somewhat hostile country bespeaks
their conviction.