Arizona bill AZ HB2467 requires graduating high school students to take an oath

I haven't seen this posted yet so here goes, my first thread, lol

Bill text: legiscan.com...

Under this bill, a graduating pupil must take this oath in order to receive their diploma:

I, _________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; So help me God.

Aside from the fact that forcing a young adult (presumably 17-18) to take an oath in order to receive their high school diploma after 12 years of learning vaguely stinking of coercion, a similar thing occurred in 1958 during the McCarthy era. The 1958 affidavit, however, was worded as to disavow the belief in the overthrow of the US government. It was found to be ineffective as a fellow of the National Science Foundation who had agreed to the affidavit was found guilty of contempt of Congress by the House of Representatives' Un-American Activities Committee. The section with the affidavit was repealed for this reason by JFK. Requiring an oath to receive a perceived benefit in exchange for an educational goal is no guarantee of the receipt of that benefit.

Additionally, the oath that graduating students would have to take is strikingly similar to the Oath of Enlistment that is required of every soldier at the time of enlistment within our military with some notable exceptions in wording:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

source: www.military.com...

I am all for defending and protecting the Constitution. However, I do not think that forcing high school students to take what is nearly the same as a military oath is equivalent to freedom. This deeply troubles me that our nation has descended so far as to come to this and may have forgotten the lessons of history.

Umm... Dumb Question? How can this part fit:

that I take this obligation freely,

If it's required to submit to the oath for a document they've earned in every other way and require to proceed on in life to simply live as a productive citizen? That's stretching the idea of freely given so hard Gumby would scream, isn't it?

I'd read the fine print if I were these students...sounds earily like a military oath.

Scary stuff, in my opinion-although, i'd rather hear them taking an oath to the constitution than something else.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Well as much as I dislike the idea of oaths in general... Out of all the possible oaths I could fathom a (generally liberal) system of education to make their students take... This one seems fine. Uphold the Constitution, not a bad piece of advice if I do say so myself!

The part I actually enjoy most about this is actually because it is actually very different from the enlistment oath, where this oath makes a promise to uphold the Constitution, not necessarily a person pretending to follow it himself. I think I actually like this!

Originally posted by WhiteAlice

" So help me God."

Right there is the Problem.

Do it in the Name of God, and you can Justify Anything.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Congratulations on your first thread!

I'm pretty sure this is the same oath that all government workers have to take. When I did census work, about 10 years ago, I had to take that oath. It was explained to me that Postal Workers, whom we were staffed under, all had to take the oath.

I remember asking, "Who am I to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic?" "Do I get a gun too?"

I really thought it was out of line then, and I think it's out of line for teenagers, just exiting High School too. It sounds like campus ROTC indoctrination. I thought the ACLU won a case against them on High School campuses, but I could be wrong.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Although I certainly appreciate the sentiment behind this bill, it won't stand and if it passes it will be struck down by the Arizona Supreme Court. You can not make someone say "so help me God". Even if this did pass does it really matter?? Our politicians and law enforcement take this oath and it doesn't seem to matter, so why would it make a difference if a private citizen did??

Well, it is Arizona and gun ownership is in jeopardy, and it is a proposed bill. So, draw your own conclusions as to the motivation. I wish it proposed that the kids had to take a course on the constitution.

reply to post by PhysicsAdept

This one seems fine.

The oath being 'fine' is one thing. Being forced to take it as prerequisite to graduating from something you have truly earned, is quite another.

I hope these students band together and ignore it. Deny it. Outright refuse it. Not because it's wrong (to some) but because it's the right thing to do if you don't agree.

Stand.

Peace

Why would Arizona even draft such a bill? Is this upgrade from that little draft card we have to fill out when we turn 18?

reply to post by Maluhia

Very interesting post OP, Thanks! I do not think it so much an issue as
so help me god...but an issue... The bigger picture in me mind is the kids
have been attending public schools for many years & now they have to take
some Bloody oath to graduate. This is all so totally wrong & including the so help
me god...it's all bloody wrong! More advantages for home schooling
because if this is really happening wonder what the schools are actually
teaching now? Unbelievable..

Cheers
Ektar

Obviously, the requirement to pledge the Oath as a prerequisite to receiving a high school diploma is an egregious violation of a number of principles especially when the Oath specifies it is taken "freely". The language "So help me god" absolutely should be deleted and is likely unconstitutional as other posters have stated.

However, as Oaths go, this one makes much better sense IMO than pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth primarily, secondarily to the republic, and finally to "one nation under god with liberty and justice for all" which has become a complete mockery of what exists in the Corporation of the USA these days.

ganjoa

reply to post by jude11


Ok, point taken and I suppose that is more than a valid argument. However, having just recently graduated from a high school in a public district I am aware of many other things that goes on in public education.

For example, why should I be practically forced to go to a graduation ceremony with a 4.0 GPA when I must sit next to kids who barely showed up, sold drugs, got into gang fights blocks away from the school, and still managed to pass high school with all in all disrespect for people and disregard for education?

To me that seems like a pointless ceremony if you ask me, and to say that graduating means anything would, in my opinion, be a fallacy. It was a joke and the school did very little to help me. So, would adding one actually rather moral "oath" into the mix... tell me how that makes things any worse.

As someone who lived in a failing school system, what I wished for everyday was for a tad bit more respect for logic. Asjing to abide by the only governmental document I believe in would have been nearly the only pleasure I would have had in high school.

Plus, if that is so bad then perhaps we should stop saying the pledge of allegiance in school as well (which to e honest I actually am all for doing).

Yes, to make it mandatory to graduate is a little... messed up and I agree. Do you think it was so severely enforced?

reply to post by Ektar


Not sure why you addressed your reply to me because I made no statement about the rightness or wrongness of the "oath" - just said basically, consider the source and environment.

Explanation: S&F!

How is this any different to taking the Pledge of Allegiance?

And does this affect private eductation institutions?

Personal Disclosure: And as always ... home schooling ones kids would avoid all this 'hegemony' ok!

reply to post by WhiteAlice

Let's call it the American Citizens Oath....and suggest everybody take it (and those in uniform, police and military, renew their oaths with the understanding that the Constitution is under attack from within).

reply to post by WhiteAlice


considering how the constitution gives them most of their freedoms.. I do not see why not. It would be strange though.

Having read the bill, and the posts, there are a few things that can be stated:

If this passes through and gets signed into law, there will be challenges in court for it. Ultimately it is a big waste of time and money. It is getting plenty of attention by the media in Arizona, however here is a fundamental problem with this oath as it stands.

6% of the population of Arizona, technically are dual citizens, being that they are Native Americans, and live on the reservations. They would not think of or even consider taking such an oath.

But the biggest problem is what if the child or family is not a Christian? What if they are say Buddhist, or Muslim, or even Pagan? After all there are several communities, like Sedona, which is a big draw for the metaphysical community and wiccans in that area.

From what I could find out, the ACLU is watching this very carefully, planning to challenge it in court. But more importantly, if anything, it shows how out of touch the legislators are with the people, as the author of this bill is shocked by the negative feedback that he is recieving.

According to him, the main purpose was to get the children interested in the Constitution of the US. While the idea is noble, the execution is terrible, as it would have been much better to make a requirement of graduation to be passing a civics course, that way as part of the circulum would be focused on the Constitution of the USA.

No, something tells me that there is going to be a law suit and it should not stand up in court.

Originally posted by Maluhia
Well, it is Arizona and gun ownership is in jeopardy, and it is a proposed bill. So, draw your own conclusions as to the motivation. I wish it proposed that the kids had to take a course on the constitution.

edit on 25-1-2013 by Maluhia because: (no reason given)

A full on course on the Constitution would be the only way that I could see this oath as a viable option and not as a requirement for receiving one's diploma. There is no oath of allegiance to anyone in that bill, which can be, arguably, a good or a bad thing depending on which side of the coin one is looking at. However, that leaves interpretation of what is a Constitutional right and what isn't up to the personal interpretation of teenagers with a pledged duty to enforce and does not take stare decisis into consideration at all.

Gun ownership may be in jeopardy or it may not be and could, instead, be a heavily politicized issue being used to generate controversy for ratings for all we know. Selective reporting is a bit of a problem here in the U.S. If something were to pass and if the Supreme Court fails to speak on the matter and defend the Constitution as is its stated purpose according to the Constitution, itself, then I could see this kind of response as being warranted (as long as it was optional). We have established checks and balances within our federal government. As much as I do love my Constitution, I do not see a respect for the Constitution in the proposal of this bill because it ignores the document as a whole.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
6% of the population of Arizona, technically are dual citizens, being that they are Native Americans, and live on the reservations. They would not think of or even consider taking such an oath.

To further add to this specific line as there are a number of tribes and reservations in Arizona, Native Americans living on tribal (reservation) lands are not subject to state law. They are, instead, subject to their own tribal and federal laws. This law, if passed, would not apply to any Native American living on a reservation. Period. Arizona could not legally enforce it upon the tribes.