O'Brien finally argues that the 1965 Amendment is unconstitutional as enacted because what he calls the "purpose" of Congress was "to suppress freedom of.

Lichter v. Uniter States, 334 U.S. 742, 755 758, 68 S.Ct. P. 391 U. S. 375. 32 CFR § 1617.1 (1962).5 Wilful violations of regulations promulgated pursuant to the Universal Military Training and Service Act were made criminal by statute. (Italics supplied.). Journal, October Term, 1947, p. 298. And the House Report explained: 'Section 12(b)(3) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1951, as amended, provides that a person who forges, alters, or in any manner changes his draft registration card, or any notation duly and validly inscribed thereon, will be subject to a fine of $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than 5 years. The 'Explanation of the Bill' in the Senate Report is as follows: 'Section 12(b)(3) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1951, as amended, provides, among other things, that a person who forges, alters, or changes a draft registration certificate is subject to a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. ", The indictment upon which he was tried charged that he, "willfully and knowingly did mutilate, destroy, and change by burning . 894, 93 L.Ed. Accordingly, those issues are not before the Court. Here, however, O’Brien had many other ways to make his point without burning his draft card. 566, 71 L.Ed. 747, 89th Cong., 1st Sess.

1966). In the House debate only two Congressment addressed themselves to the Amendment—Congressmen Rivers and Bray. The indictment upon which he was tried charged that he 'willfully and knowingly did multilate, destroy, and change by burning * * * (his) Registration Certificate (Selective Service System Form No. 50 U.S.C.App. [Footnote 11] Subsequently, and based on a questionnaire completed by the registrant, [Footnote 12] he is assigned a classification denoting his eligibility for induction, [Footnote 13] and, "[a]s soon as practicable" thereafter, he is issued a Notice of Classification (SSS Form No. 32 CFR § 1623.5 (1962), provides, in relevant part: "Every person who has been classified by a local board must have in his personal possession at all times, in addition to his Registration Certificate (SSS Form No.

.

The principal class of cases is readily apparent -- those in which statutes have been challenged as bills of attainder. We consider these arguments separately.

Congress amended the Universal Military Training and Service Act (Selective Service Act) in 1965 to prevent people from intentionally destroying draft cards, which contained information on registrants for the draft such as their Selective Service numbers. (1962) (Classification Certificates). The case at bar is therefore unlike one where the alleged governmental interest in regulating conduct arises in some measure because the communication allegedly integral to the conduct is itself thought to be harmful. This was one of the earliest occasions on which the Court considered symbolic speech or expressive conduct under the First Amendment.
For this noncommunicative impact of his conduct, and for nothing else, he was convicted. Pursuant to this power, Congress may establish a system of registration for individuals liable for training and service, and may require such individuals within reason to cooperate in the registration system.

In general, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitutionprotects a person’s right to speak freely. U.S.Sup.Ct. It is a familiar principle of constitutional law that this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive. Today the Court also denies stays in Shiffman v. Selective Service Board No. We granted the Government's petition to resolve the conflict in the circuits, and we also granted O'Brien's cross-petition. This case should be put down for reargument and heard with Holmes v. United States and with Hart v. United States, post, p. 956, in which the Court today denies certiorari. This case should be put down for reargument and heard with Holmes v. United States and with Hart v. United States, 390 U.S. 956, 88 S.Ct. It prohibits the knowing destruction of certificates issued by the Selective Service System, and there is nothing necessarily expressive about such conduct.

The Court referred to Congress' power to raise armies in discussing the 'background' (334 U.S., at 753, 68 S.Ct., at 1300) of the Renegotiation Act, which it upheld as a valid exercise of the War Power. The registration certificate serves as proof that the individual described thereon has registered for the draft.

[Footnote 9] He is assigned a Selective Service number, [Footnote 10] and within five days he is issued a, registration certificate (SSS Form No. In Abel v. United States, 362 U. S. 217, the petitioner had conceded that an administrative deportation arrest warrant would be valid for its limited purpose even though not supported by a sworn affidavit stating probable cause; but the Court ordered reargument on the question whether the warrant had been validly issued in petitioner's case. Finally, the 1965 Amendment, like § 12(b), which it amended, is concerned with abuses involving any issued Selective Service certificates, not only with the registrant's own certificates. In other words, both the governmental interest and the operation of the 1965 Amendment are limited to the noncommunicative. In the House debate only two Congressmen addressed themselves to the Amendment -- Congressmen Rivers and Bray.

P. 391 U. S. 382.
Pp. O’Brien argued that the law is unconstitutional because it was enacted to abridge the freedom of speech. His argument is that the freedom of expression which the First Amendment guarantees includes all modes of "communication of ideas by conduct," and that his conduct is within this definition because he did it in "demonstration against the war and against the draft.

159, 62 L.Ed.

Amendment was a reasonable exercise of the power of Congress to raise armies. When a male reaches the age of 18, he is required by the Universal Military Training and Service Act to register with a local draft board. This is undoubtedly true in times when, by declaration of Congress, the Nation is in a state of war. O'Brien v. United States, 376 F.2d 538, 542 (C.A.

At trial and upon sentencing, O'Brien chose to represent himself. This is not such a case, since O'Brien manifestly could have conveyed his message in many ways other than by burning his draft card. In these cases, the purpose of the legislation was irrelevant, because the inevitable effect—the 'necessary scope and operation,' McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27, 59, 24 S.Ct.