Summary

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Gonzales v. United States (348 U.S. 407…

So basic, indeed, is this 'prime requirement of any fair hearing' that counsel for the Government contended for the first time in oral argument that the rights of the registrant were amply protected by the provision in the regulations for a mode of 'rehearing.' In short, the argument is that after the Appeal Board decides against the registrant and his file is returned to the local Board, he has the right under the selective service regulations to examine all information in his file, including the recommendation of the Department, 32 CFR § 1606.32 (a) (1)
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Gonzales v. United States (348 U.S. 407…

We believe these remedies to be too little and too late. Too little, because the right to present petitioner's side of the case is broader than the bare right to correct 'errors' made by the Department in its recommendation. Too late, because, except with the permission of the national or state Director, only the local Board may reopen the case; and a certain reluctance is to be expected after the Appeal Board, albeit on incomplete presentation, has rejected the registrant's claim.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Gonzales v. United States (348 U.S. 407…

It is true that the recommendation of the Department is advisory. 50 U.S.C.App. § 456 (j) , 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 456 (j) . Indeed, this very consideration led us in United States v. Nugent, supra, to allow considerable latitude in the auxiliary hearing which culminated in the Department's report. A natural corollary of this, however, is that a registrant be given an opportunity to rebut this recommendation when it coames to the Appeal Board, the agency with the ultimate responsibility for classification.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature