Summary

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Witmer v. United States — Opinion of the Court

This is not merely a case of a registrant's claiming three separate classifications; it goes to his sincerity and honesty in claiming conscientious objection to participation in war. It would not be mere suspicion or speculation for the Board to conclude, after denying Witmer's now-abandoned claims of farmer and minister, that he was insincere in his claim of conscientious objection. Even firemen become dubious after two false alarms.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Witmer v. United States — Opinion of the Court

At the Department hearing, Witmer asserted that he could not engage in noncombatant service since he felt that 'the boy who makes the snow balls is just as responsible as the boy who throws them.' On the basis of the entire file, including the FBI report and the interview, the hearing officer suggested a conscientious objector classification. The Department of Justice, however, concluded that Witmer's inconsistent statements together with his offer to contribute to the war effort precluded such a classification and recommended to the Appeal Board that Witmer's claim be denied.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Tom C. Clark Tom C. Clark Witmer v. United States — Opinion of the Court

Section 6 (j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 62 Stat. 612, as amended, 50 U.S.C.Appendix, § 456 (j) , 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 456 (j) , provides that no person who, 'by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form', shall be required to undergo combatant training or service in the armed forces.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature