Selective Draft Law Cases
38 S. Ct. 159, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 2138, 245 U.S. 366 (1918)
Rule of Law:
Congress has the constitutional authority under its war powers to compel military service from citizens through a selective draft, and such conscription does not constitute involuntary servitude or an unlawful delegation of power.
Facts:
- The Act of May 18, 1917, titled 'An Act to authorize the President to increase temporarily the Military Establishment of the United States,' was enacted during the existing emergency of war.
- The Act intended to raise a national army by, among other means, subjecting all male citizens between the ages of twenty-one and thirty to duty in the national army for the period of the emergency.
- The Act made it the duty of those liable to the call to present themselves for registration upon the President's proclamation to subject themselves to its terms.
- The Act provided exemptions for designated United States and state officials, military/naval personnel, regular ministers of religion, and theological students.
- The Act relieved members of religious sects whose tenets excluded the moral right to engage in war from strict military service but subjected them to non-combatant service.
- The President issued a proclamation calling for the registration of persons designated within the ages described in the statute.
- The plaintiffs in error, who were in the class and under the statute were obliged to present themselves for registration, failed to do so.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States prosecuted the plaintiffs in error in federal trial courts for failing to register for military service under the Selective Draft Act of 1917.
- In the trial courts, the plaintiffs in error defended by asserting that the Selective Draft Act was unconstitutional.
- The trial courts instructed the juries that the legal defenses were without merit and that the statute was constitutional, resulting in convictions for the plaintiffs in error.
- The plaintiffs in error appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court of the United States for review of the constitutional questions raised.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Congress have the constitutional power to compel military service by a selective draft, or are the provisions of the Selective Draft Act of 1917 repugnant to the Constitution due to alleged unlawful delegation of power, establishment of religion, or involuntary servitude?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice White
Yes, Congress does possess the constitutional power to compel military service by a selective draft, and the Selective Draft Act of 1917 is not repugnant to the Constitution on any grounds presented. The Court found this power rooted in Congress's authority to 'declare war,' 'raise and support armies,' and 'make all laws which shall be necessary and proper' for carrying these powers into execution (Article I, § 8). The very concept of an army necessitates men, and a governmental power that requires citizen consent to be exercised is not a true power. There is a reciprocal obligation of a citizen to render military service in case of need and the government's right to compel it. This principle is supported by historical practice in England, the American colonies, and the states under the Articles of Confederation, many of which compelled service. The Constitution, adopted to remedy the lack of a central power to raise armies, deliberately granted this authority to Congress, distinguishing it from the militia clause (Article I, § 8), which addresses specific state-controlled, limited uses of militia forces. The 'army power' is plenary and dominant. Historical precedent, especially the Civil War's conscription acts, further demonstrates this federal power. The Fourteenth Amendment, by making U.S. citizenship paramount, reinforces the national scope of this power. The Court also rejected claims that the Act constituted an unlawful delegation of power to state officials or administrative officers, or an establishment of religion due to exemptions. Finally, the Court held that requiring a citizen to contribute to national defense in a war declared by representatives of the people is a 'supreme and noble duty,' not involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment.
Analysis:
This case solidified the federal government's broad and plenary power to raise armies through compulsory conscription, particularly during wartime. It firmly established that the 'raise and support armies' clause is distinct from and paramount to the 'militia' clause, clarifying the scope of federal military authority. The decision reinforced the concept of a citizen's fundamental obligation to render military service, underpinning the constitutionality of future draft laws and national defense efforts. It also set precedents regarding the limits of delegation of power and the interpretation of involuntary servitude in the context of civic duties.
