Arizona House Passes a Bill That Would Force Children To Say the Pledge of Allegiance
"The current law is that parents have a right to direct the education of their child,'' said the bill's sponsor. "And this is a parents' rights state.''

A bill aimed at forcing Arizona's public school students to recite the Pledge of Alliance each day passed the state House this week. Despite opponents citing that the measure is clearly unconstitutional, the House's Republican majority is pressing forward.
"We stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day on this floor. What's good for us is good for the children," Rep. Barbara Parker (R–Mesa), who sponsored House Bill 2523, said during a hearing for the bill.
H.B. 2523, which was introduced last month, seeks to require that the state's public primary and secondary schools "set aside a specific time each day for students who wish to recite the pledge of allegiance to the United States flag," adding that "each student shall recite the pledge of allegiance to the United States at this time." The bill allows students to refuse only when they are over 18 or have parental permission to refuse to recite the pledge.
"This is to make sure that students growing up understand the country in which they live and embrace the citizenship and the founding principles that we hold so dear," said state Sen. Wendy Rogers (R–Flagstaff).
The bill passed on Tuesday along party lines, with Republicans exclusively supporting the measure. It will likely pass the Republican-controlled state Senate. However, the bill is blatantly illegal, and even if it manages to somehow overcome a veto from the state's Democratic governor, it would likely be quickly overturned in federal court.
As much as Arizona Republicans want to enforce this "citizenship" exercise, the Supreme Court decisively ruled in 1943 that schoolchildren cannot be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Court ruled that the state cannot compel anyone—even schoolchildren—to profess or vow a belief they do not hold.
"Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard," wrote Justice Robert H. Jackson in the Court's opinion, famously adding, "if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in matters of politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
Constitutional law doesn't seem to bother the bill's supporters, who argue that the provision allowing parents to permit their children to sit out the pledge is sufficient protection for free speech. "The current law is that parents have a right to direct the education of their child," Parker said during the floor debate over the bill. "And this is a parents' rights state."
Regardless of Arizona Republicans' insistence, they don't have the power to singlehandedly quash the First Amendment rights of Arizona schoolchildren. If the bill becomes law, they'll likely learn this in court.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
An unnecessary distraction when more important issues clamor for attention.
But why is the parental opt-out provision inadequate? The Supreme Court merely proclaimed the right of children to be exempt from flag-salutes, they didn't ban the salute altogether. And like they guy said, it's a parents-rights state.
If state-enforced nationalism of kids compelled by the state to be in school where the enforcement happens can't be the default position here, what happens to our freedoms?
Good point.
Peer pressure might be the angle by which the courts strike this down.
Not every kid is a Jehovah's Witness who glories in defying the world. Some have scruples but are also sensitive to bullying.
But I would suggest that it might not be a judicial slam-dunk. It's probably the luck of the draw - do you get a judge who was bullied in school or a judge who wasn't (or who as a jock enforced the rules of the schoolyard against the nerds and weirdos).
That's a fair point regrading pressure...
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link------------------------------------>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
The guy’s name is Barbara. ????
She’s a bit unclear on the difference between individual and collective. But then a lot of politician’s when wrap themselves in the flag are.
Dee! You bitch!
Google paying a splendid earnings from domestic 6,850 USD a week, this is awesome a 12 months beyond I was laid-off in a totally horrible financial system. “w many thank you google every day for blessing the ones oa-11 guidelines and presently it’s miles my responsibility to pay and percentage it with all and Sunday.
.
.
Proper right here I started————————>>> GOOGLE WORK
I too am puzzled by Reason's decision to run an article on such an insignificant state legislators' political stunt.
The bill passed the House, so it isn't some fringe legislator's publicity stunt. If it becomes law, the court case challenging it will be an important one to watch. (I do think there will be one, although who will actually be able to bring it is unclear, since parents who support their kids' right to refuse to say the pledge could simply sign the opt-out form.)
” If it becomes law…”
Ah yes, the Laconic if.
If.
Tell us Dan, will it become law?
Maybe when you are actually correct then your and Emma's pants shitting will be worth some consideration.
If.
I think the kids of parents who don't opt-out would have standing to sue, though they probably wouldn't have the resources to do so. I think some parents who oppose the law will choose not to opt-out so the kids have standing to sue, and then the parents might pay for the legal fees.
It's mandatory without an explicit opt-out by the parents. That's the problem. Merely spending thirty seconds reciting a Socialist pledge is not the issue, it's forcing all children to do it unless their parents have registered them as being members of the opposition.
The parents can opt-out. It’s the kids who can’t without their parents’ permission. Actually, I’m not sure what you mean by an “explicit opt-out by the parents” and how that’s different from “their parents registering them as being members of the opposition”.
"An unnecessary distraction when more important issues clamor for attention."
THIS. The border is disintegrating and THIS is the fight Arizona Republicans want to have? Are they morons? I truly despise the GOP. Cowards, cravens, and crooks.
Does it exempt transgender kids?
Only transnational kids.
Yes, and transfat kids too.
Such imposed orthodoxy from the woke progressives!
https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1628795437565059074?t=uq6XS9j0f821o7xF4UtmnQ&s=19
Joy Behar says the residents of East Palestine got what they deserved because they voted for Trump.
"That's who you voted for!" she shouted at the camera. "In that district. Donald Trump, who reduces all safety. He did in those days."
[Video]
But holding commenters liable for defamation of public figures is something we should never, ever do.
Moronic woman says something moronic on moron television to her moron viewers. News at 11.
Looters, after all is said and done, are.. well... looters, whether they want you sacrificed to Jesus or Stalin.
Headline is 100% wrong. The law only states schools must provide a time to do so. It does not force kids to participate. The article even states this. Has the same opt out as many blue states have for sex ed or trans lessons.
"The bill allows students to refuse only when they are over 18 or have parental permission to refuse to recite the pledge."
Do you not understand what an opt out is? I mention it in my comment.
Point to 'opt out' (or something that means the same) in the text of the law
It's in the quote right above - "or have parental permission". That's the legal opt-out.
Now you could argue that the children don't have an independent opt-out - but that's true of most legal standards. They are the parents' to exercise, not the child's.
Fuck you Jesus, it 100% does!
Not Jesus. But the article even agrees retard. This is the same bullshit attack last year for adding a moment of silence for which students could pray.
To quote the philosopher, there will be prayer in schools as long as there are history tests.
"Headline is 100% wrong."
Brevity and accuracy.
Certainly more apt than "free minds and free markets"
Yes, this is somewhar silly grandstanding.
No, it does not “force” anyone to say the Pkefge of Allegienxe.
When I was a school age, my school's had the Pledge every morning, though I did not attend a government school.
"each student shall recite the pledge of allegiance to the United States at this time."
Read the entire article dumbass. Or read the actual law.
That's asking a lot from a reason commenter - - - - - - - -
5. For kindergarten programs and grades one through twelve, set aside a specific time each day for students who wish to recite the pledge of allegiance to the United States flag.� Each student shall recite the pledge of allegiance to the united states flag during this time.� At the request of a student's parent or of a student who is at least eighteen years of age, the student shall be excused from the requirement of this paragraph.
The kids can't opt-out, but the parents can.
Although, children's constitutional rights are violated all the time, including the Second Amendment. But just because it's already happening, doesn't mean we should expand it.
any law that can't be enforced is really no law. and this one simply cannot be enforced. any student can simply stand and remain silent.
The opt-out will be to instead swear allegiance to Fuhrer Trump or Kari Flake, "da winnah."
It doesn't force anyone but it does expose anyone who wants to opt out to possible harassment because they cannot do so without drawing attention to themself.
So, concern about the law is not “silly”.
Yes. When I was a kid the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons did not recite the pledge. Because their religion forbade the worship of any other gods, not even the god known as Government.
And they did get picked on for it. I also seem to recall some Catholics who remained seated as well. So why do only the religious get to opt out? What about those who don't believe in reciting a SOCIALIST pledge to a state?
It isn’t socialist. You’re not pledging allegiance to the government, or any politicians. Your pledging allegiance to our constitutional republic, and the principals upon which it was founded.
I realize reference for our constitutional republic is anathema to many globalist leftists, but this is America. Despite democrat efforts to destroy it.
You do realize that "our constitutional republic" is in fact "the government", right?
I pledge Allegiance to the Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands ...
I happen to think that's an okay thing to say but don't weaken your case by claiming it's not a pledge of allegiance to the government.
The Nixon law doesn't subsidize THEIR candidates.
This rant grossly misreads what West Virginia actually held.
The notable (and constitutionally critical) factor that distinguishes this bill from West Virginia's is that this bill allows students to refuse if they have parental permission. The West Virginia decision (kudos to the author for linking to it but points off for apparently not reading it) is full of references to parents' rights to control education and parents' rights to act on their consciences and criminal consequences to parents for non-compliance.
It's a reasonable policy question to ask whether this kind of forced affirmation actually works or eventually backfires. But the claim that it's "blatantly illegal" is unhinged.
I wonder, if the court precedent is that parents are to control a child's education, does that mean the faculty do not have unfettered free speech rights with regards to a child's educatiin? That the have the right to go outside approved standards too far?
That would be an overstatement of the court precedent. The West Virginia majority didn't see this as a component of the child's education at all.
There is no reference anywhere in the Constitution to “parent’s rights”. But freedom of speech and freedom of religion are, and this law offends both.
Technically, it might not offend religion. The bill doesn’t look like it says anything about whether the pledge they recite has to have the “under God” or not.
All children count as 3/5 of a person. That's in the Constitution.
Such wit!
It's a 1A religious freedom case. The law gives parents an opt out but denies that right to minor children. But we also have to contend with Tinker V. Des Moines. Which was a 1A free speech case.
https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-tinker-v-des-moines
"In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court’s majority ruled that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The Court took the position that school officials could not prohibit only on the suspicion that the speech might disrupt the learning environment."
I think the legality boils down to whether or not minor children have 1A rights or if only their parents do. Tinker seems to say that students have constitutional rights but I would not predict how a district court would rule.
the proper law in any state would require immediate tarring & feathering of any person bringing a Pledge bill to vote.
What about drag queen story hour in the school library?
With or without parental permission?
The state of the Trumpican Party (once known as Republicans) today. What a bunch of authoritarians!
Oh look, another Buttplug sock.
Who ever thought butt plug and sock in the same sentence would make sense?
Put a sock in your butt and plug it!
Makes total sense.
Outlaw public sector unions.
Eliminate tenure at public universities
Everything else is rearranging deck chairs.
Just return the mission to border protection, contract enforcement, and post offices.
Performative bullshit
All around.
Would.
/SPB2
Lol.
Sadly, that isn’t just a joke. He would likely rape the hell out of those kids.
I was raised a Jehovah's Witness and the church dogma forbids recitation of the pledge or standing for the anthem. They view it as idolatry. While I have long since fallen from grace, I became aware early on that the JWs through the federal court system did a lot to guarantee constitutional religious rights that government found inconvenient. They failed on the draft and a lot of them spent years in federal prisons but they succeeded in many including the case referenced above. I attended public schools in the 60s and 70s and the pledge was a daily event. I did not participate. On several occasions, at the beginning of a school year, a teacher would attempt to discipline me and my mom would have to go the school and explain the law. She won every time. That experience made me appreciate the constitution and individual rights as a small child. A lesson I have not forgotten. I don't like this law much and the political posturing is pretty tiresome. But it looks like they have attempted to get around the case law by adding the parental opt out and I'm not sure that they will lose in the federal courts. The constitution just ain't what it used to be.
Great post GG. Thanks for the detail.
The idea here is to enforce orthodoxy on children though peer pressure. Can you imagine being the kid whose parents opt them out. Great setup for bullying.
Amazing seeing some of the same people here defending forced teaching of CRT and gender theory, often without any opt out, cry about the fucking pledge of allegiance.
Neither amazing nor surprising.
Fascists gotta do fascism.
Wait til they fund out schools teach American history.
Nor do they recognize that these sorts of legislative acts are a direct rebuttal to the woke indoctrination.
Deep thinker Emma ain't.
OK, but turn that around. What about people that are attacking forced teaching of CRT and gender theory, but are defending the forced saying of the pledge of allegiance.
For the record, I'm against both forced teaching of CRT and forced recitation of the pledge.
Forcing kids to listen to something is different from forcing kids to say something.
I don't like either, but they are different.
What if someone were to recite the ORIGINAL pledge ? You know the one that doesn't have "under god" falsely jammed into it ?
They took some of the sting out of the original socialist phrasing.
We've had "Under God" since 1954, which is longer than the lifespan of the Godless version.
I personally have problems pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth, but as for "The Republic for Which it Stands," that part is fine.
"liberty and justice for all" would include the Jehovah's Witnesses and other dissenters, so I'd frown on anything smacking of coercion.
In fact, a compulsory flag salute might be invoked as precedent for compulsory DEI foolishness, given the makeup of our two Teams and their "no, YOU'RE a hypocrite!" style of debate.
I like Matt Groening's version:
https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/94bqr/i_pledge_impertinence_to_the_flag_life_in_hell/
Kids can always fall back on the tried-and-true kids’ trick of making up their own words.
I pledge allegiance to the fag.
Exactly.
Yes, you leftists have come that with your LGBTQRIDPJN3273Z flag.
Seems like compelled speech. Very un-American.
Please explain how it is different than requiring students to recite anything else?
Multiplication tables are compelled speech.
Hamlet's soliloquy is compelled speech.
Personally I think every student at a US public school should be compelled to recite Patrick Henry's speech to the Virginia Convention.
If only for the irony.
Personally I think every student as a US public high school should be compelled to face their state capital and shout FUCK YOU, then turn to face Washington DC and shout AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON! And then take up the sledgehammers to continue with the demolition of the socialist edifice known as the school house.
Not generally a fan of the pledge, or even doing the anthem at pro sports (makes sense at the Olympics and similar), but both the impetus behind this bill and the backlash against it seem comically overblown.
Mission succeeded.
Forced patriotism is the best kind.
Plenty if kids in indoctrination schools hate America. Kids will be fine.
the pledge of allegiance is fuckin weird. full stop.
"Hey kids, recite this creepy pledge like drones".
I was forced to recite it dry morning of my elementary school career. And grew up with an understanding that something can be both boring and creepy at the same time.
Like sex with my ex wife.
Cha-Ching!
At least when you break up with a hot crazy chick the sex was good.
The elementary-age kids who recite this and have no fucking idea what they are agreeing to.
In high school, when I finally started to think about what I was saying, I modified it to omit the parts I disagreed with, in particular “indivisible.” (I want to keep my opinions open.)
I find the pledge to be creepy as fuck, and I would sooner see it forgotten altogether. But it’s not nearly as disturbing as all the mandatory CRT and genderqueer shit floating around out there.
You want weird? The pledge was written by comrade Bellamy's brother. Bellamy's "Looking Backward" paean to looter collectivism was followed by Equality (NOT 7-2521), a follow-up that delivered the structure for Germany's Christian National Socialism to fully take over by the year 2000. A rich kid brainwashed in Germany, Bellamy's screed is the blueprint for Hitlerism published when McKinley and TR's imperial prohibitionism had us standing at Armageddon and Fighting for The Lord... just like Germany in 1914 and 1939.
More ?blessings? of Commie-Education.
It sounds like you had a similar experience to me. When I needed to develop a mobile app, a programmer friend recommended using migration magento 1 vers 2 and other resources for mobile development. These tools were very helpful in creating a high-quality digital product that has since become an important part of my business. I believe that using these resources can lead to increased profits and benefits.
Simple solution is to get the government out of education entirely.
Until then...
Long research in zones with intense climatic features needs a process of a technological approach, hurricane satellite tracking. The formed associations of scientific organizations are best able to supplement each other to obtain all of the necessary data from the studied natural place.
Good old Team Red! Forcing children to pay fealty to the Almighty State! By reciting a Socialist pledge!
i'm sure that no one will be policing the children. if a child wants to stand and say nothing that will not be an issue. the positive thing about this is that it really pisses off the libtards.
They might get detention, or some other sanction.
That violates both the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment.
Stop putting lies in your article titles.
Kids' constitutional rights are violated all the time. They can't own guns. (Second Amendment) They are required to write English essays, and if they don't, they have to stay behind after school. (First Amendment) They are given detention, spanking and other sanctions without a court trial. (Sixth Amendment)
I think there is a strong precedent that the Constitution doesn't apply to children. I disagree with the precedent, but it exists.
And this law doesn't seem too different from existing violations of the Constitution. While I don't support violating kids' constitutional rights more than they are already violated, I still don't see the big deal.
The 'big deal' has always been; It's Commie-Education (i.e. gov/'public').
None of it would be a big deal otherwise...
Whoever sold the idea it took Gov-Guns to teach children anyways?
Did you really mean to say "force children to say the pledge of allegiance?" Did you mean "require" instead of "force?" If the use of actual force is intended in the wording of the bill, what form(s) of force are allowed, or are the techniques of compliance left to the imagination of the enforcer?
The State AG ... Brnovich hid speech he didn't like
and yet the State will FORCE kids to speak.
I reject the GQP's forced speech.
I reject the GQP's lies and insurrections.
Vote BLUE
.... until the GQP ejects their rejects.
Dumb ideas like "keep voting Kleptocracy" are turning America into Weimar Germany. Casting a leveraged libertarian spoiler vote repeals bad laws and causes the looter parties to backstab their bad apples by following the good example set by thinking voters. (http://bit.ly/3XV2fWQ)
So 18 tr Olds and parents who wish to can opt their children out. That's not forcing anything.
Back in the 1970s, I refused to say (or stand for) the pledge of allegiance in high school because I'm a principled atheist, who knows that no gods actually exist, and that America's Constitution is what gave us our rights (that Democrats have been trying to erode).
I didn't have a problem with pledging allegiance to the US of America, but I'll never pledge allegiance to a mythical religious symbol.
Note that Republican theocrats added the two word "under god" to the pledge and required "In God We Trust" on all US Coins during the 1950s when McCarthyesm reigned supreme).
After my homeroom teacher sent me to the principal's office (for refusing to say and stand for the pledge), I also informed the principal that no god exists, and I would NEVER pledge allegiance to any god(s), the principle told my teacher to allow me to not say or stand for the pledge.
Fixed that problem quickly.
The proposed state law is a complete waste of time. The U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in the 1940s that made it clear you cannot force anyone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. So that state law wouldn't survive a swift court challenge.
The Bellamy pledge served as part of the conscription process that ended with torching villages in 'Nam. To see how the Gee-Oh-Pee is reverting to its 1930s fascination with mystics like Franco, Hitler, Duce and their imitators, see "The Mortal Storm." Before war arrived, Hollywood let Jimmy Stewart depict New Germany's conformatization program brainwashing all into groveling, and singing along with the Nazi program to take revenge on the Jesus-killers... exactly like MAGA Trumpanzees today! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p12sXkrDCY0