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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.