Abstract
To the Editor:— I would like correct and amplify the brief item, reporting the outcome of my case testing the Doctor-Draft act, that appeared inThe Journalon Nov. 6, 1954, advertising page 14. Whether the Doctor-Draft act is constitutional was the sole question raised by my suit, and constitutionality was therefore not merely among other points, as erroneously stated inThe Journal. I contended in my brief that the Doctor-Draft act violates the provision of the Constitution that restricts the power to raise armies those laws which shall be necessary and proper; violates the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws; violates the amendment providing for the equal protection of the laws; violates the amendment prohibiting deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process; and violates the amendment forbidding involuntary servitude except as punishment for crime. The Army, in its answering brief, did not contest or
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
