It seems to me that the conviction is a stark violation of the freedom allowed under the First Amendment thought it was a right decision under the provisions of the Selective Service and Training Act. In fact, the Selective Service System works well within the limits of the First Amendment. To illustrate, it offers the chance to be a conscientious objector by satisfying three basic tests. Firstly, the person should show that they are conscientiously opposed to the war in any form. Secondly, the person has to prove that the opposition is based on religious training and belief.
In addition, the person must show that the objection is sincere. Admittedly, a look into the Islamic teachings makes it clear that Islamism is not totally opposed to war. It only provides certain guidelines on how to fight a war and for what purposes a war can be fought (“ Islam and War” ). Therefore, Ali cannot meet the first criteria that the religion should be against war “ in any form” . The position of the Government that Islamism is not totally against war seems correct at this juncture.
However, the Supreme Court overcame this claim by showing the decision in United States v. Kauten. In this case, the court held that a general scruple against participation in war in any form is sufficient to support an exemption under the Act (Streissguth 67). Thus, the court made it clear that conscientiousness is about an individual’ s interpretation of religious teachings and not about the general dogma associated with that religion. Yet another important allegation, based on Campbell v. the United States is that Ali had not shown overt manifestations sufficient to establish his subjective belief until military service became imminent (Streissguth 71).
However, the mere fact is that the Government was heavily relying on circumstances and timing of the claim.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples