News-Record.com

Help me, Mark. I don't get it.

The bill will "require... the recitation of the Pledge of Alligiance on a daily basis" and "shall not compel any person to... recite the Pledge of Alligiance."

Roch:

Leaving aside the intent of the bill – you can think it’s good or bad – but I really don’t think the bill makes much sense from a semantic standpoint.

First off, there’s already a law on the books that does essentially the same thing.

The whole "shall not compel any person to... recite the Pledge of Allegiance" is a nod to, what do you call it, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Turns out, you can’t force someone, even a youngster, to say the pledge against their will.

But apparently you can require there be a time every day where somebody, if they’re so inclined and there’s a flag handy should say the pledge.

Which brings me back to the whole idea of what this bill lays out already being required by state law. I don’t see that the bill changes a whole lot. The lawyering class seems to think that this will prod some schools into doing something more than they do now, and that some schools will ignore the new law with impunity.

So why do it?

It’s a run on bill, pure and simple, as in “This is a great bill for a politician to run on.”

Strangely enough, Boseman’s bill would have gone further, and would have moved us further off the status quo than SB700 would. Again, you can argue over whether that’s a good thing or not.

Ahhhh, a run on bill. That makes more sense than a bill that requires recitation of the pledge but doesn't require anyone to fulfil that requirement.