# Soloman Amendment Upheld - Law Schools Cannot Ban Military Recruiters **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 6, 2006, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276 "2006-03-06T18:32:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/21 "2006-03-06T20:06:52Z")
> [@Richard Parker](#): > > I believe the court also ruled that Congress could directly require the schools to accept the recruiters instead of making it a funding-dependent decision. But, someone knowledgier than I may come along and correct me. I’ve got some egg on my face if that is true. The news article I read this morning ([here](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060306/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_campus_recruiters) ) said that, " colleges that accept federal money must accept military recruiters on campus." ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/22 "2006-03-06T20:08:31Z")
> [@Richard Parker](#): > > To quote the court, “…the First Amendment would not prevent Congress from directly imposing the Solomon Amendment’s access requirement.” Ah, you posted too quickly for me. I wonder if the Law Schools that are currently refusing military recruiters (Vermont Law School, New York Law School, and William and Mitchell Law School according to wiki) will be forced into accepting recruiters now? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/23 "2006-03-06T20:09:59Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Ah, you posted too quickly for me. > > I wonder if the Law Schools that are currently refusing military recruiters (Vermont Law School, New York Law School, and William and Mitchell Law School according to wiki) will be forced into accepting recruiters now? I believe the current amendment does not require it. The court was just saying that Congress \*could \*legally, directly require it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/24 "2006-03-06T20:17:22Z")
> [@Richard Parker](#): > > I believe the current amendment does not require it. The court was just saying that Congress \*could \*legally, directly require it. And that would be, in my view, a perfectly constitutional thing for Congress to do… but a very unwise, very poor public policy choice for Congress to make. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/25 "2006-03-06T20:22:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And that would be, in my view, a perfectly constitutional thing for Congress to do… but a very unwise, very poor public policy choice for Congress to make. I am not disagreeing, just curious. Could Congress require that schools accept recruiters from, say, white power organizations looking for legal staff? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/26 "2006-03-06T20:22:55Z")
> [@](#): > > An observer who sees military recruiters interviewing away from the law school has no way of knowing whether the law school is expressing its disapproval of the military, all the law school’s interview rooms are full, or the military recruiters decided for reasons of their own that they would rather interview someplace else. This doesn’t make sense in the least bit. Just becuase no information can be gleaned from the military interviewing off campus, does not mean that no information can be gleaned from the military interviewing on campus. For example, if I allow a group to meet inside of my house a reasonable person can conclude that I support that group, or at least condone it. Its the same with these universities, by providing facilities to the military they send the message that they at best do not care about the militarys bigotry. > [@](#): > > The statute provides an exception for an institution with “a longstanding policy of pacifism based on historical religious affiliation.” This portion of the amendment seems clearly unconstitutional. By putting this exception in the amendment, Congress is favoring religion over non-religion. That, in my opinion, is a violation of the establishment clause and should be struck. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/27 "2006-03-06T20:30:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And that would be, in my view, a perfectly constitutional thing for Congress to do… but a very unwise, very poor public policy choice for Congress to make. This is interesting. Could Congress require military recruiters to have access to my home? Could it require that Benny Hill have access to my closet? ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/28 "2006-03-06T20:31:02Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > This is interesting. Could Congress require military recruiters to have access to my home? Could it require that Benny Hill have access to my closet? No worries, quartering soldiers is covered in the bill or rights ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/29 "2006-03-06T20:35:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And that would be, in my view, a perfectly constitutional thing for Congress to do… but a very unwise, very poor public policy choice for Congress to make. I’m curious as to why you think this does not violate the First Amendment. Anyway, I don’t think it’s good policy to impose these kinds of conditions on federal “largesse” – because it’s not like the fed is giving the dough out of generosity; it’s doing so because it believes there’s a good ROI. I’m certainly not convinced that it’s constitutonal either, but I’m much too lazy to form any structured argument on that score. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/30 "2006-03-06T20:37:56Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > \ I’m certainly not convinced that it’s constitutonal either, but I’m much too lazy to form any structured argument on that score. Well since the Supreme Court has ruled it is constitutional… no matter how we feel about it… it is (not because they are infalible, but because they get to define what is constitutional) ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/31 "2006-03-06T20:49:36Z")
> [@treis](#): > > This portion of the amendment seems clearly unconstitutional. By putting this exception in the amendment, Congress is favoring religion over non-religion. That, in my opinion, is a violation of the establishment clause and should be struck. Ah, obviously it is not clearly unconstitutional though, because the SCOTUS was okay with it. You may also like to know that religious persons have been able to get out of being drafted into combat positions in the past, and that the Amish do not have to pay into social security. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/32 "2006-03-06T21:09:52Z")
> [@Richard Parker](#): > > I am not disagreeing, just curious. Could Congress require that schools accept recruiters from, say, white power organizations looking for legal staff? No. Congress’ authority in regard to military recruiting derives from the Constitution, which grants to Congress the power to “provide for the common Defence,” “[t]o raise and support Armies,” and “[t]o provide and maintain a Navy.” Quoting US v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367 (1968): “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. Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742, 755 -758 (1948); Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918); see also Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 25 -26 (1942).” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/33 "2006-03-06T21:11:15Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > I’m curious as to why you think this does not violate the First Amendment. Well, I started by reading the First Amendment, and I didn’t see anything in there that this violated, so I sorta figured it didn’t violate anything in there. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/34 "2006-03-06T21:14:11Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > No worries, quartering soldiers is covered in the bill or rights I’m not quartering them. They don’t even have to be soldiers, just recruiters. Bricker says that we have to provide for the common defense and the powers are broad and sweeping. Given that drafts are constitutional, there is no real reason why Congress can’t simply break into my home, grab me, and throw me into the service, so why can’t they at the very least force me to watch a recruitment video on my own DVD player with a recruiter watching? Come to think of it, forcing all kids in public schools to watch recruitment videos would be a lot cheaper than the millions upon millions spent on buying ad time. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/35 "2006-03-06T21:15:21Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Ah, obviously it is not clearly unconstitutional though, because the SCOTUS was okay with it. As far as I can tell they didn’t address it. By the way this comment adds dick to the debate. If you think its constitutional, then say why. > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > You may also like to know that religious persons have been able to get out of being drafted into combat positions in the past, and that the Amish do not have to pay into social security. I do not believe that there is a religious requirement for being a conscious objector, am I mistaken. As for the Amish, their exception is unconstitutional if they deny that exception to a non-religious group that voiced the same objections. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/36 "2006-03-06T21:20:45Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > Well since the Supreme Court has ruled it is constitutional… no matter how we feel about it… it is (not because they are infalible, but because they get to define what is constitutional) Except they didn’t rule it constitutional unless that portion of the bill was specifically addressed in the suit. In order to get a ruling on that aspect of the law, you would have to specifically challenge it. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/37 "2006-03-06T22:05:16Z")
> [@treis](#): > > As far as I can tell they didn’t address it. By the way this comment adds dick to the debate. If you think its constitutional, then say why. There isn’t a debate about constitutionality. This was a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that it is constitutional to force institutions of higher learning to accept military recruiters on their campuses. I fail to see how interjecting a completely solid _fact_ doesn’t add dick to the debate. Until people stop saying this is unconstitutional then I’ll keep referring them to the _fact_ that actually it is. Anyone who has taken a civics class in high school knows that if the SCOTUS says it is constitutional, it is in fact so. I tend to note this crap a lot when it comes to the SCOTUS. When the SCOTUS is making a decision X group agrees with, that group will counter any arguments against it as “hey, it’s constitutional and you need to recognize that.” Sort of like how Pro-Choicers smugly explain how they have the absolute right of choice. While those who oppose the position will continue to say it is unconstitutional and that the SCOTUS erred. Of course group X is certainly likely to engage in the same type of behavior its opponents do anytime it is confronted with a decision it dislikes. Either way everyone needs to realize that yes, factually speaking this is now constitutional. Maybe it _shouldn’t_ be, but to say it is unconstitutional is factually incorrect and has no place in GD. > [@](#): > > I do not believe that there is a religious requirement for being a conscious objector, am I mistaken. As for the Amish, their exception is unconstitutional if they deny that exception to a non-religious group that voiced the same objections. No, there isn’t a religious requirement per se but it can be more difficult to get conscientious objector status as a non-religious person. Well, at least it was, we haven’t had a draft in so long it’s hard to say what it would be like today. Up until 1970 it was simply a fact that to be a CO you had to have some religious ideology for it, the “I don’t like war” argument just didn’t fly. A SCOTUS ruling changed that. During the civil war conscientious objectors either had to pay a fine or hide, there wasn’t any way to conscientiously object without having something taken from you. In WWI conscientious objectors were allowed to serve in non-combat roles, those who refused any military service were locked in prison, and eventually used as labor. WWII conscientious objectors could serve in non-combat roles, if they absolutely refused military service they were drafted into the CPS in which they performed various civilian labor duties on the home front. I’m not sure what CO criteria would be used if a draft were reinstated today, currently if members of the military become conscientious objectors during their term of duty they have to have a hearing presided over by chaplains and other officers to show that they have a legitimate CO stance and are not just making up an excuse to get out early. So it seems likely to me that a religious stance is definitely one that is easier to defend in such a hearing and probably more likely to get you off as a CO. As for the Amish, for a long time they paid all the taxes we do but refused many of the services. The IRS ultimately change the code so that they wouldn’t have to pay the taxes since they aren’t using the services. I’m guessing the reason average Joe doesn’t avail himself of this option is because it is presupposed on there being a group dynamic. For the Amish to have their exception they have to in good faith help take care of elderly Amish and help with the medical bills of other Amish. The Amish tend to have a good bit of monetary wealth in their communities, and if any one person suffers hardship the community almost invariably helps to fix it (erecting barns in 1 day raisings if they are destroyed by fire, or by paying in full and up front all medical bills any one of them might need if they go to a modern hospital.) I’m not sure if there is a like exemption for atheists but I doubt it, the IRS exemption is based on the concept of a “religious sect” and they accept the refusal of insurance benefits (and thus the refusal to pay into them) in part because these sects actively take care of their own. Ostensibly if the Amish stopped taking care of their old they would lose their exemption. [Link](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00001402----000-.html) You can check it out here, I haven’t read through it entirely but I don’t really see any exceptions made for areligious sects. Some of the relevant passages read: > [@](#): > > (e) Ministers, members of religious orders, and Christian Science practitioners > (1) Exemption > Subject to paragraph (2), any individual who is > (A) a duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church or a member of a religious order (other than a member of a religious order who has taken a vow of poverty as a member of such order) or > (B) a Christian Science practitioner, upon filing an application (in such form and manner, and with such official, as may be prescribed by regulations made under this chapter) together with a statement that either he is conscientiously opposed to, or because of religious principles he is opposed to, the acceptance (with respect to services performed by him as such minister, member, or practitioner) of any public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act) and, in the case of an individual described in subparagraph (A), that he has informed the ordaining, commissioning, or licensing body of the church or order that he is opposed to such insurance, shall receive an exemption from the tax imposed by this chapter with respect to services performed by him as such minister, member, or practitioner. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, an exemption may not be granted to an individual under this subsection if he had filed an effective waiver certificate under this section as it was in effect before its amendment in 1967. and > [@](#): > > (g) Members of certain religious faiths > (1) Exemption > Any individual may file an application (in such form and manner, and with such official, as may be prescribed by regulations under this chapter) for an exemption from the tax imposed by this chapter if he is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof and is an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division by reason of which he is conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act). Such exemption may be granted only if the application contains or is accompanied by— > (A) such evidence of such individual’s membership in, and adherence to the tenets or teachings of, the sect or division thereof as the Secretary may require for purposes of determining such individual’s compliance with the preceding sentence, and > (B) his waiver of all benefits and other payments under titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act on the basis of his wages and self-employment income as well as all such benefits and other payments to him on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of any other person, > and only if the Commissioner of Social Security finds that— > (C) such sect or division thereof has the established tenets or teachings referred to in the preceding sentence, > (D) it is the practice, and has been for a period of time which he deems to be substantial, for members of such sect or division thereof to make provision for their dependent members which in his judgment is reasonable in view of their general level of living, and > (E) such sect or division thereof has been in existence at all times since December 31, 1950. > An exemption may not be granted to any individual if any benefit or other payment referred to in subparagraph (B) became payable (or, but for section 203 or 222(b) of the Social Security Act, would have become payable) at or before the time of the filing of such waiver. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/38 "2006-03-06T22:12:28Z")
> [@treis](#): > > As far as I can tell they didn’t address it. By the way this comment adds dick to the debate. If you think its constitutional, then say why. I should have added on to my last post but I forgot to do so. I think this is constitutional because the SCOTUS didn’t strike it down. The SCOTUS isn’t strictly refrained on what it can rule on, if it reviews a law it can strike it down on any aspect it finds in the law that it believes to be unconstitutional. There have been various SCOTUS decisions, in fact some of the most important ones, where the SCOTUS expanded enormously beyond the case at hand and any arguments presented in said case (Marbury v. Madison, Dredd Scott for example.) If the SCOTUS truly saw the religious exemption to be unconstitutional it definitely could have chosen to say so, just because it wasn’t a matter raised by counsel (or was it? I don’t know) for either side doesn’t mean the SCOTUS couldn’t review it. Once it is reviewing a statute it can certainly rule on any part of it they choose, there is nothing that restricts SCOTUS ability to do so. Furthermore I’m of the opinion that if something isn’t strictly unconstitutional, then it is constitutional unless shown to be otherwise. And thus whether or not it is to be “allowed” is up to various other elements of government (Legislative branches state and federal, municipalities and etc.) > [@](#): > > I do not believe that there is a religious requirement for being a conscious objector, am I mistaken. As for the Amish, their exception is unconstitutional if they deny that exception to a non-religious group that voiced the same objections. Again, I don’t believe this aspect of the tax code is unconstitutional because right now it is the law of the land. And it has never been declared constitutional. I profess ignorance as to whether it has ever been challenged in court. And there may in fact be exceptions out there for areligious groups I just couldn’t find them in my brief searchings. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/39 "2006-03-06T22:25:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Marbury v. Madison Yeah, it’s ironic that this case is in many ways the foundation for what people see the Court doing these days. The case is so bizarre, and the ruling so radically wacky and outside the issues put before the court… Not to mention that even Stevie Wonder knows that it’s “signed, sealed, DELIVERED” not just “signed, sealed.” ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276/40 "2006-03-06T22:53:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is both a correct decision under the law, and a wise expression of national policy. How nice to have both at once! I can’t speak to the correctness of this under the law, but would argue that it’s extremely poor public policy, if only because it supports, directly, the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which is immoral and unwise. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soloman-amendment-upheld-law-schools-cannot-ban-military-recruiters/347276.md?page=3)