opinion Solomon smiles as court reviews law Why is Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y., smiling? The author of the law bearing his name is smiling because it appears the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn a district court ruling and declare the draft registration com pliance statute constitutional. "I'm certainly smiling," Solomon said after listening to arguments in a lawsuit brought by six college students in Minnesota. justice William Brennan, at one point, said he did not understand why the students maintained they were "compelled" to incriminate themselves by signing the com pliance form. The lawyer for the students, William Keppel, replied the "compulsion stems from their need.” Keppel went on to argue the law infringed on the students' constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination and punishes them before they have been found guilty of disobeying any Selective Service rules. Last June a judge in Minnesota agreed with the students' arguments and struck down the statute. But on the government's side, Solicitor General of the United States Rex Lee, argued the district court decision should be overturned because the statute does not result in any actual punishment for those who refuse to register, but only denies them "a noncontractual federal benefit." Lee said the purpose of Solomon's law was to ensure more students complied with draft registration laws, not to penalize those who object to registration. Apparently the statute has been very successful. Lee told the court that the number of students who have registered for the draft has increased dramatically. He said only 3 per cent of those eligible had failed to registered. This is down from the 7 percent who did not register for the draft last year. Lee argued the law did not force students to incriminate themselves because they are not compelled to apply for federal aid nor to inform the government about their draft registration status. Rounding out his arguments Lee used a classic double negative. "It's not a crime not to apply for stu dent aid," he said. Keppel reminded the justices that upholding the Solomon law could have far-reaching implications on other government programs and benefits. "Government.. .will be able to force people to swear or certify that they have committed no crimes in order to receive government benefits," Keppel said. As an example Keppel predicted people who want to get a driver's license could be forced to sign a form certifying they have never smoked marijuana. The coercive aspect of Smilin' Solomon's statute is part of what we deplore. However, the fact that economically disadvantaged students who would normally be unable to pay their college costs may be denied federal aid because of their religious or moral beliefs is unconscionable. Solomon's Amendment creates gender and wealth distinctions whith have no relationship to federal financial aid provisions. Solomon will continue to smile — it looks fairly certain the Supreme Court will rule in the registration compliance statute. Solomon can wave the flag claiming "without the law there's discrimination against all 11 million patriotic Americans who have registered," but educational opportuni ty and patriotism don't seem the same to us. So who cares? They're just bums There's cause for hope and perhaps a reason to rejoice — The Department of Housing and Urban Development said Tuesday that there are only 350,000 homeless people in this country, not the millions estimated by some (cheesy, undependable, probably Democratic, fly-by-night) non governmental organizations. It is so reassuring to know that in this mighty nation of ours, a nation that can spend billions upon billions on military defense, only a paltry 350,000 people wander America's streets destitute. We are certainly overjoyed that these 350,000 homeless aren't among those who aren't hungry in this country. Ap parently hunger isn't a very widespread problem either. !t was just pansy liberal sour grapes that prompted Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. to say the government was "trying to define the homeless out of existence., .because they (HUD) don't want to spend money on the problem." If the number of homeless is so small the government is right to just let 'em rot in the rain. Short of a Swiftian modest proposal, the government should do nothing about its in digent citizens — except maybe adjust the statistics. all ikying To <#r me' i know you're au our mRBf m