翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Johnson Township, LaGrange County, Indiana ・ Johnson Township, LaPorte County, Indiana ・ Johnson Township, Polk County, Minnesota ・ Johnson Township, Ripley County, Indiana ・ Johnson Township, Scott County, Indiana ・ Johnson Township, Washington County, Arkansas ・ Johnson Township, Webster County, Iowa ・ Johnson Tshuma ・ Johnson University ・ Johnson University Florida ・ Johnson v Agnew ・ Johnson v Gore Wood & Co ・ Johnson v Unisys Ltd ・ Johnson v. Eisentrager ・ Johnson v. M'Intosh ・ Johnson v. Robison ・ Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co. ・ Johnson v. United States (2000) ・ Johnson v. United States (2015) ・ Johnson v. Zerbst ・ Johnson Valley, California ・ Johnson Village, Colorado ・ Johnson Wagner ・ Johnson Wax Headquarters ・ Johnson Wildlife Management Area ・ Johnson William Richardson ・ Johnson Zuze ・ Johnson&Jonson ・ Johnson's Addition ・ Johnson's algorithm Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Johnson v. Robison ： ウィキペディア英語版 Johnson v. Robison ''Johnson v. Robison'', , was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. The court held that the Veterans' Administrations' allocation of greater educational benefits to combat veterans than conscientious objectors was consistent with the United States Constitution. Robison, a conscientious objector, argued that such unequal benefits violated his 5th Amendment right to Equal Protection and his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The court rejected both arguments. == Opinion of the Court == The court reasoned that a rational basis existed to give combat veterans better benefits than those who objected for religious reasons: namely, encouraging people to participate in the armed forces as soldiers. The court reasoned that the increased disruption and longer commitment for soldiers justified disparate allocation of benefits. As to free exercise, the court held that the withholding of benefits had only an incidental burden, if any, on religious exercise, that that burden was not intended, and that it was justified by the substantial government interest in raising an army. The Court also held that 38 USC section 211(a) does not preclude constitutional challenges to law administered by the Veteran's Administration. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Johnson v. Robison」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.