1280, 2 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1958).28 Here, the pre-existing avenue of prosecution was not even statutory. He essentially adopts the position that such certificates are so many pieces of paper designed to notify registrants of their registration or classification, to be retained or tossed in the wastebasket according to the convenience or taste of the registrant. [Footnote 16] After such a reclassification, the local board, "as soon as practicable," issues to the registrant a new Notice of Classification. I wish to make explicit my understanding that this passage does not foreclose consideration of First Amendment claims in those rare instances when an 'incidental' restriction upon expression, imposed by a regulation which furthers an 'important or substantial' governmental interest and satisfies the Court's other criteria, in practice has the effect of entirely preventing a 'speaker' from reaching a significant audience with whom he could not otherwise lawfully communicate. In such a case, it is not unusual to ask for reargument (Sherman v. United States, 356 U. S. 369, 356 U. S. 379, n. 2, Frankfurter, J., concurring) even on a constitutional question not raised by the parties. * Together with No. Cf. In determining whether a particular statute is a bill of attainder, the analysis necessarily requires an inquiry into whether the three definitional elements—specificity in identification, punishment, and lack of a judicial trial—are contained in the statute. The Court held that the federal law in question was narrowly crafted to satisfy an important governmental interest of administering a system to raise an army, which was unrelated to freedom of expression. The Selective Service number itself indicates his State of registration, his local board, his year of birth, and his chronological position in the local board's classification record. The inquiry into whether the challenged statute contains the necessary element of punishment has on occasion led the Court to examine the legislative motive in enacting the statute.
1. 32 CFR §§ 1625.1, 1625.2, 1625.3, 1625.4, and 1625.11 (1962). 1117 (1931), for example, this Court struck down a statutory phrase which punished people who expressed their 'opposition to organized government' by displaying 'any flag, badge, banner, or device.'
at 334 U. S. 753). 1294, 1301—1303, 92 L.Ed.
United States Code, Section 462(b).". A government regulation is justified if (i) it is within the Government’s constitutional power; (ii) it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; (iii) the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and (iv) the incidental restriction on the First Amendment is not greater than necessary to further that interest. In other words, both the governmental interest and the operation of the 1965 Amendment are limited to the noncommunicative. just such a tax. P. 391 U. S. 377. Whether registrants keep their certificates in their personal. The regulatory scheme involving Selective Service certificates includes clearly valid prohibitions against the alteration, forgery, or similar deceptive misuse of certificates. We note that, if we were to examine legislative purpose in the instant case, we would be obliged to consider not only these statements, but also the more authoritative reports of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees.
The constitutional power of Congress to raise and support armies and to make all laws necessary and proper to that end is broad and sweeping. This is undoubtedly true in times when, by declaration of Congress, the Nation is in a state of war. 1359, 93 L.Ed. Although as we note below we are not concerned here with the nonpossession regulations, it is not inappropriate to observe that the essential elements of nonpossession are not identical with those of mutilation or destruction. ", 62 Stat. Additionally, in a time of national crisis, reasonable availability to each registrant of the two small cards assures a rapid and uncomplicated means for determining his fitness for immediate induction, no matter how distant in our mobile society he may be from his local board. This disposition makes unnecessary consideration of O'Brien's claim that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming his conviction on the basis of the nonpossession regulation.31. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144, 372 U. S. 169-184 (1963); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 356 U. S. 95-97 (1958). When the issue is simply the interpretation of legislation, the Court will look to statements by legislators for guidance as to the purpose of the legislature,30 because the benefit to sound decision-making inthis circumstance is thought sufficient to risk the possibility of misreading Congress' purpose.
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. The Government petitioned for certiorari in No. 522, 526, 75 L.Ed. 1252 (1946). We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment and sentence of the District Court without reaching the issue raised by O'Brien in No. Lichter v. United States, 334 U. S. 742, 334 U. S. 755-758 (1948); Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U. S. 366 (1918); see also Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 317 U. S. 25-26 (1942). Congress demonstrated its concern that certificates issued by the Selective Service System might be abused well before the 1965 Amendment here challenged. Correspondingly, the availability of the certificates for such display relieves the Selective Service System of the administrative burden it would otherwise have in verifying the registration and classification of all suspected delinquents. We think it apparent that the continuing availability to each registrant of his Selective Service certificates substantially furthers the smooth and proper functioning of the system that Congress has established to raise armies.
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. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. . Accordingly, the statute itself is constitutional. However, even on the assumption that the alleged communicative element in O'Brien's conduct is sufficient to bring into play the First Amendment, it does not necessarily follow that the destruction of a registration certificate is constitutionally protected activity. O'Brien's argument to the contrary is necessarily premised upon his unrealistic characterization of Selective Service certificates. We hold that the 1965 Amendment is constitutional both as enacted and as applied. He stated in argument to the jury that he burned the certificate publicly to influence others to adopt his antiwar beliefs, as he put it, 'so that other people would reevaluate their positions with Selective Service, with … 683, 4 L.Ed.2d 668, 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. Once the registrant has received notification, according to this view, there is no reason for him to retain the certificates. Once the registrant has received notification, according to this view, there is no reason for him to retain the certificates. at 1302; Selective Draft Law Cases, supra. The registration certificate specifies the name of the registrant, the date of registration, and the number and address of the local board with which he is registered. 233, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining his conviction on the basis of a crime of which he was neither charged nor tried. The statute attacked in the instant case has no such inevitable unconstitutional effect, since the destruction of Selective Service certificates is in no respect inevitably or necessarily expressive. The statute attacked in the instant case has no such inevitable unconstitutional effect, since the destruction of Selective Service certificates is in no respect inevitably or necessarily expressive. [Footnote 4] At the time the Amendment was enacted, a regulation of the Selective Service System required registrants to keep their registration certificates in their "personal possession at all times." And legislation. 2) in his personal possession shall be prima facie evidence of his failure to register.". O'Brien was free to verbally criticize the use of draft cards, but burning them directly frustrated the government's interest in keeping draft cards available. No. 795).
1. 32 CFR §§ 1625.1, 1625.2, 1625.3, 1625.4, and 1625.11 (1962). 1117 (1931), for example, this Court struck down a statutory phrase which punished people who expressed their 'opposition to organized government' by displaying 'any flag, badge, banner, or device.'
at 334 U. S. 753). 1294, 1301—1303, 92 L.Ed.
United States Code, Section 462(b).". A government regulation is justified if (i) it is within the Government’s constitutional power; (ii) it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; (iii) the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and (iv) the incidental restriction on the First Amendment is not greater than necessary to further that interest. In other words, both the governmental interest and the operation of the 1965 Amendment are limited to the noncommunicative. just such a tax. P. 391 U. S. 377. Whether registrants keep their certificates in their personal. The regulatory scheme involving Selective Service certificates includes clearly valid prohibitions against the alteration, forgery, or similar deceptive misuse of certificates. We note that, if we were to examine legislative purpose in the instant case, we would be obliged to consider not only these statements, but also the more authoritative reports of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees.
The constitutional power of Congress to raise and support armies and to make all laws necessary and proper to that end is broad and sweeping. This is undoubtedly true in times when, by declaration of Congress, the Nation is in a state of war. 1359, 93 L.Ed. Although as we note below we are not concerned here with the nonpossession regulations, it is not inappropriate to observe that the essential elements of nonpossession are not identical with those of mutilation or destruction. ", 62 Stat. Additionally, in a time of national crisis, reasonable availability to each registrant of the two small cards assures a rapid and uncomplicated means for determining his fitness for immediate induction, no matter how distant in our mobile society he may be from his local board. This disposition makes unnecessary consideration of O'Brien's claim that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming his conviction on the basis of the nonpossession regulation.31. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144, 372 U. S. 169-184 (1963); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 356 U. S. 95-97 (1958). When the issue is simply the interpretation of legislation, the Court will look to statements by legislators for guidance as to the purpose of the legislature,30 because the benefit to sound decision-making inthis circumstance is thought sufficient to risk the possibility of misreading Congress' purpose.
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. The Government petitioned for certiorari in No. 522, 526, 75 L.Ed. 1252 (1946). We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment and sentence of the District Court without reaching the issue raised by O'Brien in No. Lichter v. United States, 334 U. S. 742, 334 U. S. 755-758 (1948); Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U. S. 366 (1918); see also Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 317 U. S. 25-26 (1942). Congress demonstrated its concern that certificates issued by the Selective Service System might be abused well before the 1965 Amendment here challenged. Correspondingly, the availability of the certificates for such display relieves the Selective Service System of the administrative burden it would otherwise have in verifying the registration and classification of all suspected delinquents. We think it apparent that the continuing availability to each registrant of his Selective Service certificates substantially furthers the smooth and proper functioning of the system that Congress has established to raise armies.
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. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. . Accordingly, the statute itself is constitutional. However, even on the assumption that the alleged communicative element in O'Brien's conduct is sufficient to bring into play the First Amendment, it does not necessarily follow that the destruction of a registration certificate is constitutionally protected activity. O'Brien's argument to the contrary is necessarily premised upon his unrealistic characterization of Selective Service certificates. We hold that the 1965 Amendment is constitutional both as enacted and as applied. He stated in argument to the jury that he burned the certificate publicly to influence others to adopt his antiwar beliefs, as he put it, 'so that other people would reevaluate their positions with Selective Service, with … 683, 4 L.Ed.2d 668, 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. Once the registrant has received notification, according to this view, there is no reason for him to retain the certificates. Once the registrant has received notification, according to this view, there is no reason for him to retain the certificates. at 1302; Selective Draft Law Cases, supra. The registration certificate specifies the name of the registrant, the date of registration, and the number and address of the local board with which he is registered. 233, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining his conviction on the basis of a crime of which he was neither charged nor tried. The statute attacked in the instant case has no such inevitable unconstitutional effect, since the destruction of Selective Service certificates is in no respect inevitably or necessarily expressive. The statute attacked in the instant case has no such inevitable unconstitutional effect, since the destruction of Selective Service certificates is in no respect inevitably or necessarily expressive. [Footnote 4] At the time the Amendment was enacted, a regulation of the Selective Service System required registrants to keep their registration certificates in their "personal possession at all times." And legislation. 2) in his personal possession shall be prima facie evidence of his failure to register.". O'Brien was free to verbally criticize the use of draft cards, but burning them directly frustrated the government's interest in keeping draft cards available. No. 795).