◆ SpookStack

. . . é . ; ), ; ™ : s- sa batt uit, = =i: 8 181 P-ED233 DFT OU0a LS So ~-New Yorr Times, Kov. 3, 1997, De l+- , ~ . tu = directive dsted Octob-r 26, 1957, General Levis B. Hershey, Selective Service Syeten Director, instructed the netion's 4100 locel dreft sozrde es follows: ; ° : {liesrl eetivitr which interferes vita recruiting cr cuusss refuszl of *uty in the militer: forces could not oy eny stretch of the dmcctinztion be construed as being in suo-ort of the notion al interesti...Denonstrati-ns, woen they become illegsl, have pro@uced -nd will continue to nrofuce much evidence the t reletes to the bests for clrseteficetian....4 loe-1 boerd, woon receint of this infornation, open the clessific-tion..a2ndee. declare the recistr-nt to be ¢ delinquent. (u.¥. Times, For. 9, is the Times revorter covering, the interview of Fov, 7 strtes, "the decision vould resvilti in the drsfting cf students or other young persons woe hold deferments but nc rticipe te in enti-ewnar demonstretions edjudged to interfere vith selective service operation,” ostensibly under the-st-tute tht vrovides vensities for "any person *ho shall Imovwinzgly interfere....in cny Wry by force or violence...." with the operetion cf the draft systen. : ro ia) ee Ln | bn ¢ RO { i‘ 5 me SUCH US: OF SE SELECTIVE (S°VICE SYS@fEN I3 UNCONSTITUTIONAL. On October 15, 1965 University of Michieon students protested the Vietnom ver by st-einge sitein ~t the local Selective Service board at inn &rbor, Michigan. Ten of these students.lost their II-& deferments end were recl-ssified I-% by their locrl boards -t the behest of Generzl Hershey. Two students snpesled this violétion of their rivnts of free sveech by suing the Selective Service System. In the case of Peter Yolff end Rich-rd Short vs. Selective Se vice Locsl 3oerds #16 snd #65, the United States Second Court of 4pnesls ruled on Jenuary 30, 1967 es follows: a 1. “Bocel dreft bo-rd &1d not have 2uthority to decide as | ba So A Selective service recistrant was ‘delimuent’ beceuse o perticipatton in demonstr-tionee.s. | , 3. Doccl srlective service board did not heve function of . punishing individusl registr-nts for perticip2tins in demonstration.... ~~ | 6. eeeCompl-int...thet registrent's Zonstitutional rights of speech and assembly. wave infrinzed by draft board's re- clessificatin....beceuse of p-rticinatitn in demonstration.. Would t-ke orecedence over nolicy of court of nonintervention fin effairs of selective service. : | . .. 22. Ordinerily, selective service registrent must weit until ct hat Py ct he recieves induction order, 2nd hes either obeyed it, or is prosecuted for refusing to obey it... 16. Mere thre-t of imnceition of unconstitutional senetions will cause immediete irreparable injury to free exercise of rights as fragile -nd sensitive to suo oression es freedom of speech and assembly... . ne :