Supreme Court Case Clay V. United States?

I'm having difficulty understanding what amendment this case actually affected. To be more clear, the case Clay v United States is the case involving Muhammad Ali evading the draft.... If anybody could help clear up what amendment was effected and why that'd be super awesome

3 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    The Court held that since the Appeal Board gave no reason for the denial of a conscientious objector exemption to petitioner, and it is impossible to determine on which of the three grounds offered in the Justice Department's letter that board relied, petitioner's conviction must be reversed.

    The justices never make any references to the Constitution per se, but to previous law, including both the Selective Service Act and to previous opinions. You can read the opinion at the link. You'll have to trace the previous opinions if you wish to find a Constitutional link.

    Note that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise an army and navy, so I assume the Selective Slavery Act falls under this section. Ali based his conscientious objection on his religious beliefs, and the first Amendment guarantees freedom of religion.

  • 3 years ago

    ok. To many people (the non-geeky criminal community), the magnitude of the case replaced into this. Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) refused to pass into the protection stress. He had sturdy non secular ideals that conflict and violence replaced into incorrect, and that to serve could be an affront to his non secular convictions. His application (close by point) replaced into standard. The charm board reversed, and located that he had to serve. He replaced into then banned from boxing, whilst his charm replaced into pending. The preferrred courtroom reversed, and Clay replaced into exonerated. The case stands for the proposition that genuine electorate might desire to stand up for his or her ideals, and that whilst it may injury you, it is the outstanding challenge to do. That conscientous objector prestige is a superb of all electorate, no count if that's nicely believed ... yet, regrettably, that's no longer what the preferrred courtroom held. The preferrred courtroom reversed on a procedural/technical foundation. there have been 3 plausible grounds to refuse concientous objector prestige. The charm board recited the three standards, and located that Clay had failed on his burden under those standards. as a result, held the charm board, Clay's objector prestige should not be sustained, and his refusal to be inducted replaced right into a contravention of regulation. The preferrred courtroom stated that, previously that courtroom, the US government recognized that 2 of the plausible motives to reject objector prestige have been for sure no longer supported via the checklist. the government argued that there replaced into evidence to help rejection of the 0.33 foundation for rejection of objector prestige. even although, the preferrred courtroom stated that because of the fact the Appeals Board did no longer articulate which huge-unfold it replaced into in accordance with, and because 2 out of the three standards weren't suitable, the ruling of the Appeals Board might desire to be reversed. Had the Appeals Board merely pronounced that they have been based on the 0.33 foundation, that's plausible, even probable, that the case could have been desperate in yet in a different way. The eliminate -- in case you're ruling on an administrative challenge, p.c. out the muse on your decision. in any different case, your decision is an abuse of discretion. sturdy success

  • 1 decade ago

    Hmm

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.