LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

UNITED STATES v OBRIEN Click to find out why . . .


Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: USVO115918, CourtCode: DIS, CourtName: WAS CONVICTED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF, Plaintiff: UNITED STATES, State: MA Massachusetts, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>USVO115918, Nbsp, Certificate, Selective Service, United States, Registration Certificate, Destruction, Statute, Appeals, Issued Selective Service, Amendment, District Court, Mutilation, Basis, Availability, Violation, Possession, Provision, Knowing Destruction, Government, Constitutionality, Classification Certificates, Draft Cards, Regulation, Registrant, Statutory Provision, Local Board, Selective Service System, Cfr, Legislation, Congress, War, Reargument, Act, Power, Conscription, Petitioner, Justice , ContentID: 120243762

Case Documents
1   OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 110380 		20 pages
HTML
2   DISSENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 110379 		4 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 2 documents , 24 pages
Price: $ 24.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS 
CERTIFICATE
COURT
SELECTIVE SERVICE
REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
UNITED STATES
DESTRUCTION
STATUTE
APPEALS
ISSUED SELECTIVE SERVICE
AMENDMENT
DISTRICT COURT
MUTILATION
BASIS
AVAILABILITY
VIOLATION
POSSESSION
PROVISION
KNOWING DESTRUCTION
GOVERNMENT
CLASSIFICATION CERTIFICATES
DRAFT CARDS
REGULATION
REGISTRANT
STATUTORY PROVISION
LOCAL BOARD
SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM
CONSTITUTIONALITY
CFR
LEGISLATION


(Cite as: 391 U

(Cite as: 391 U.S. 367, 88 S.Ct. 1673)

UNITED
STATES, Petitioner,

v.

David Paul
O'BRIEN.

David Paul
O'BRIEN, Petitioner,

v.

UNITED
STATES.

 

Nos. 232,
233.

 

Supreme
Court of the United States

 

Argued Jan.
24, 1968.

 

Decided May
27, 1968.

 

Defendant
was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts for burning his selective service registration certificate. The
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, while holding the
statutory provision under which defendant was convicted unconstitutional,
SNIPPETS:
  • Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
  • The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, while holding the statutory
  • In the District Court, O'Brien argued that the 1965 Amendment prohibiting the knowing
  • The District Court rejected these arguments, holding that the statute on its face did not
  • The issue of the constitutionality of the 1965 Amendment was raised by counsel representing
  • At the time the Amendment was enacted, a regulation of the Selective Service System required
  • The portion of 32 CFR relevant to the instant case was revised as of January 1,
  • The Government petitioner for certiorari in No. 232, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred
  • the local board 'as soon as practicable' issues to the registrant a new Notice of
  • Both the registration and classification certificates are small white cards,
  • The registration certificate specifies the name of the registrant, the date of registration,
  • And legislation *378 to insure the continuing availability of issued certificates serves a
  • Finally, the 1965 Amendment, like s 12which it amended, is concerned with abuses involving
  • 'The committee has taken notice of the defiant destruction and mutilation of draft cards by

    • 2 . DISSENT

    		EXTRACTED KEY WORDS 
    NBSP
COURT
CONGRESS
WAR
REARGUMENT
SELECTIVE SERVICE
CONSTITUTIONALITY
ACT
POWER
CONSCRIPTION
PETITIONER
CERTIFICATE
JUSTICE
DISSENTING
DECLARATION
HOLMES
PARTIES
CONVICTION
REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
STATUTE
NONCOMMUNICATIVE IMPACT
JUSTICE DOUGLAS
RAISE
SUPPORT
ARMIES
FN1
RULING
DISSENTING OPINION
HART

    
(Cite as: 391 U

(Cite as: 391 U.S. 367, 88 S.Ct. 1673)

UNITED
STATES, Petitioner,

v.

David Paul
O'BRIEN.

David Paul
O'BRIEN, Petitioner,

v.

UNITED
STATES.

 

Nos. 232,
233.

 

Supreme
Court of the United States

 

Argued Jan.
24, 1968.

 

Decided May
27, 1968.

 

Defendant
was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts for burning his selective service registration certificate. The
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, while holding the
statutory provision under which defendant was convicted unconstitutional,
    SNIPPETS:
  • O'BRIEN, Petitioner,
  • Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
  • The Supreme Court, Mr. Chief Justice Warren, held that because of the government's s registration certificate frustrated the government's interest, a sufficient governmental interest
  • Mr. Justice Douglas dissented.
  • Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting.
  • The Court states that the constitutional power of Congress to raise and support armies is
  • [FN1]
  • That question has not been **1686 briefed nor was it presented in oral argument; but it is, I
  • the nature of the legal issue and it will be seen from my dissenting opinion in that case
  • This case should be put down for reargument and heard with Holmes v. United States and with
  • Neither of the decisions cited by the majority for the proposition that Congress' power to
  • 349, decided in 1918, upheld the constitutionality of a conscription act passed by Congress
  • The rule that this Court will not consider issues not raised by the parties is not inflexible
  • 562, reargument was ordered on the question of unconstitutional vagueness of a criminal
  • These precedents demonstrate the appropriateness of restoring the instant case to the
    •    |