Arizona public school students would spend a designated week each year studying the nation’s founding documents, and students in grades three through twelve would recite a passage from the Declaration of Independence, under legislation sent to Gov. Katie Hobbs.
The “Return to Civics Instruction Act,” Senate Bill 1572, sponsored by Sen. Mark Finchem (R-LD1), would require public schools to observe Celebrate Freedom Week. The measure was transmitted to Hobbs earlier this month after passing both chambers of the Legislature.
The bill would require each public school to include instruction during Celebrate Freedom Week in each social studies course on the “original intent, meaning and importance” of the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, and the historical context of those documents.
🚨FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Arizona Students Could Receive Expanded Instruction on America's Founding Principles Under Senator Finchem Bill Sent to Governor
The instruction would apply to students in grades one through twelve and would also cover the relationship between the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence and several periods and movements in American history, including the nation’s history as a country of immigrants, the American Revolution, the creation of the Constitution, the abolitionist movement, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the women’s suffrage movement.
For students in grades three through twelve, the measure would require a recitation of the passage from the Declaration of Independence already referenced in state law under duties assigned to the State Board of Education.
Students would not be required to participate in the recitation if a parent submits a written request to excuse the student, if the school determines that the student has a conscientious objection, or if the student’s parent is a representative of a foreign government to which the United States extends diplomatic immunity.
Celebrate Freedom Week would be defined as either the instructional week that includes Sept. 17 or another instructional week designated by the public school’s governing body. The bill would allow the State Board of Education to adopt rules and policies to implement the requirement and would require the board to ensure public schools do not censor the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights to exclude religious references.
SB 1572 passed the Senate on Feb. 26 by a 16-12-2 vote and passed the House on June 11 by a 31-23-6 vote. It was transmitted to the governor the following day.
“This bill was brought forward by a constituent with language from a similar bill that was passed into law by the Texas Legislature,” said Finchem. “If our students don’t know where their civil rights come from, how will they resist attempts to separate them from their civil rights?”
Finchem said the measure is intended to strengthen students’ understanding of the country’s founding principles.
“Too many students graduate without a basic understanding of the principles that shaped our nation and continue to protect our freedoms today,” Finchem said. “A strong civics education helps students understand not only how our government works, but why the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights matter. If we want future generations to preserve liberty, they first need to understand the ideas and sacrifices that made liberty possible. This bill helps ensure Arizona students receive that foundation.”
Arizona already requires American civics education as part of the state’s high school social studies standards. Under A.R.S. § 15-701.01, the State Board of Education must prescribe social studies standards that include American civics education and a comparative discussion of political ideologies, including communism and totalitarianism, that conflict with the principles of freedom and democracy essential to the founding principles of the United States.
State law also requires students to pass a civics test based on the civics portion of the U.S. naturalization test in order to graduate from high school or obtain a high school equivalency diploma.
The department’s 2026 Arizona Civics Test Administration Manual says students are required to score 70% or higher beginning with the graduating class of 2026 and may take the test between grades seven and twelve.
SB 1572 would add a separate requirement for annual instruction during Celebrate Freedom Week in public school social studies courses.
Universities are free to adopt ethics contrary to constitutional values, but they aren’t free from the consequences. This is especially true when the University of Arizona hired me, a Christian apologist to teach government ethics, and then fired me on ethical grounds.
For the last four years, I taught college students the skills of effective moral decision making in a required course titled “Ethics for the Public Administrator.” The students come from majors like law, criminal justice, and political science—many becoming cops, lawyers, and bureaucrats. I have countless emails and evaluations praising me for offering something they never had before: deep thinking on moral issues.
Selecting course content wasn’t easy. At first, I was tempted to model my predecessors by surveying the most popular moral theories like utilitarianism, deontological ethics, virtue ethics, relativism, natural law, and divine command theory so students could select their preferred choice.
However, ethics isn’t something public administrators can choose. They are bound by an oath to protect and defend constitutional values which are based on biblical ethics. So, that’s what I taught.
While constitutional values are based on biblical values, they aren’t the same thing. There are some obligatory commands (loving God and making disciples) and prohibitions (idolatry, blasphemy) that apply only to those who accept biblical theology. However, all values in the Constitution can be traced back to some biblical principle. No other moral theory (or combination of theories) captures the totality of constitutional values like the Bible. This is probably why the Bible was far and away the most cited text by the Founding Fathers when the Constitution was written.
While I always avoided teaching theology in my classroom, part of me worried that administrators may confuse my teaching of biblical ethics with the teaching of biblical theology. Whether this ever was their concern remains a mystery since it wasn’t why I was fired.
To my own surprise, the department director didn’t mention anything about my beliefs or my class content but pointed instead to a financial reason for firing me. After thanking me for my good service to the students, she announced I was being terminated because an unexpected budget surplus allowed them to hire full time tenure track faculty to teach my course instead.
This would be a legitimate reason, if true, but it’s not. Around the same time, the U of A made headlines for just the opposite reason. Just two weeks earlier, the AP reported U of A disclosing a nearly quarter-billion-dollar funding crisis. Needless to say, this historic calamity didn’t cohere with the director’s claim of excess funding. So, I became suspicious and asked if there was anything else that weighed into her decision to fire me. She replied simply, “No, nothing more.”
Unconvinced, I filed a freedom of information request the next day. After a seven-month wait, I enlisted an attorney to compel the university to disclose the truth of what led to their decision. The disclosure showed administrators panicked by two anonymous letters from community members complaining about statements I made at a public school board meeting. The letters alleged that I criticized the LGBTQIA+ community and asked the university to punish me for violating the university’s “values.”
The first anonymous email was sent on October 12, 2023. That same day, a Facebook thread shows three people—a teacher, parent, and school board candidate—plotting to submit their complaint. This was followed two weeks later by a second anonymous email containing similar defamatory claims. This is the true reason I was fired.
No one ever cited evidence of these alleged statements, and the university never asked me about them. They simply ended my employment for constitutionally protected speech I’m accused of making outside of the workplace, and then they lied about the reason.
This problem is much bigger than me or any other persecuted U of A employee. The problem is that there is no longer any ethical standard employed by the university that’s consistent with constitutional values. As I said at the beginning, they are free to embrace another morality, but not free from the consequences.
The university suppresses speech outside the workplace and lies about it. If this behavior accurately reflects the university’s values, we may wonder what kind of ethics they base all other decisions. If not constitutional ethics, what model will they use to operate their institution? Furthermore, what kind of moral system will they teach to future public administrators now that professors teaching constitutional ethics are not allowed? It’s a scary thought.
Dan Grossenbach is a 20-year federal criminal investigator, state-certified educator, husband, dad, patriot, and Jesus-follower in Tucson, AZ. You can follow him on X here.
There are many reasons why America’s Founders wanted a republican form of government rather than a democracy. Theoretically, a democracy requires the full participation of the masses of the people in the legislative or decision-making processes of government. This has never worked because the people, as good as they might be, become so occupied with their daily tasks that they will not properly study the issues, nor will they take the time to participate in extensive hearings before the vote is taken. The Greeks tried to use democratic mass participation in the government of their city-states, and each time it ended in tyranny.
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, summarized the Founders’ thinking by writing:
“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths….” (Federalist Papers, No. 10)
“…and to the Republic, for which It stands…”
Madison continues:
“We may define a republic to be … a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. (Federalist Papers, No. 39)
The Founders knew that if the people were continually presented with the many issues and problems of government, they would soon tire of it and become disinterested in studying the issues in order to make intelligent decisions. They would tend to yield to the enticing emotions presented to them by those who have the power to control the masses. They chose, rather, to place such decisions in the hands of wise representatives or agents who would be specifically chosen to take the time to hold committee hearings, analyze data, and consider consequences of proposed laws. The main decision for the people would be who will represent us, and it would happen on a regular periodic basis, say every two or four years.
Even in making the choice of President of the United States, the Founders rejected a vote of the people. They knew, once again, as good as the people may be, they will not take the time to study the issues or the candidates in order to make such an important decision. Hence was born the original, brilliant, electoral college system, which, while we still have it somewhat, has since been terribly abused and distorted.
The People Are to Choose Qualified Representatives, Not Decide Issues
Since issues are always changing, the Founders advised to not continually excite the people about issues, but instead choose honest, experienced representatives to tackle issues as they come. In early New England, it was customary to have a respected clergyman give what was called an “Election Sermon” prior to an election. Samuel Langdon gave that before the Massachusetts legislature in 1788. He declared:
“On the people, therefore, of these United States, it depends whether wise men, or fools, good or bad men, shall govern…. Therefore, I will now lift up my voice and cry aloud to the people…. From year to year be careful in the choice of your representatives and the higher powers [offices] of government. Fix your eyes upon men of good understanding and known honesty; men of knowledge, improved by experience; men who fear God and hate covetousness; who love truth and righteousness, and sincerely wish for the public welfare…. Let not men openly irreligious and immoral become your legislators….”
A Frustrating Ballot
One only has to look at the current Arizona ballot to appreciate the wisdom of the Founders. It is two long pages of not only candidates, but also many propositions and laws to be voted on directly by the people. Every registered voter also receives, by mail, several multi-page pamphlets explaining the legal details of the proposed laws and the submitted arguments both for and against. Who will read all this stuff? Emotion and ignorance will reign again at the ballot box!
Citizens of Arizona may be interested to know that our Initiative measure in our Arizona Constitution which allows all these laws to be voted on by the people is a technical violation of the U. S. Constitution, which requires a republican form of government, not a democracy, in every state. (U. S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4)
Perhaps, Benjamin Franklin saw what was happening in our day when he reportedly described what they had given us by saying, “A Republic, if you can keep it!”
One of the principles of liberty our Founders adhered to is that only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being reserved to the people. This principle is clearly followed in Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution wherein is outlined the 20 or so areas in which Congress can make law. This concept was abandoned decades ago as Congress began legislating in many other areas not mentioned in Article 1, Section 8.
James Madison clearly explained this principle in Federalist Paper 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.” Unlike the federal Constitution, you will not find in state constitutions specific areas in which state legislatures can make law because there are so many.
How, then, are we to understand the limits our state legislatures, our city councils, our county board of supervisors have in making law? The answer to this question lies in the constitutional phrase “promote the General Welfare.” If one observes the 20 or so powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution, they are all areas that benefit the whole people like: military defense, a monetary system, a postal system, a system of weights and measures, a federal court system, etc. In other words, general welfare means if you tax all the people, then you only spend that money for things that benefit the whole people. Under “general welfare” there is to be no tax money going to individuals, special groups, or specific geographic locations, or any other kind of “specific” welfare.
This same principle should apply to state and local governments. For example, city councils should ask themselves what are the things that benefit all the people and that all the people use? The answer would include such things as: good streets, a well-functioning domestic water system, a good sewage system, good police protection, a fair local court system, etc. These are things individuals all want and are willing to spend money to obtain because they use them. It’s really what makes us want to live in a community rather than out in the wilderness. And furthermore, there is usually not much argument or contention about these things because we consider them things that make our lives comfortable.
But what happens when government officials try to use our tax money to provide things most of us don’t want and don’t use, such as: light rail and bus systems, sports stadiums, homeless facilities, conference centers, arts centers, museums, libraries, electric vehicle charging stations, narrower streets and more bike lanes? They try to sell us on these ideas as “Quality of Life” issues. These are issues that do not pay for themselves and therefore are a significant burden paid for mostly by taxpayers who do not use them. These are also issues that cause the most disagreement and contention in a community.
But the true purpose of government is to only protect equal rights so that people can be free to invent and produce items that give us real quality of life. This also leaves more resources in the hands of the people to give compassionate service to the truly needy.
The authority to govern rests innately with the people. Government only has the authority that the people give it. If a person has no authority to take from one person and give to another (stealing), then how can he give his agent, the government, the authority to forcibly take money from citizen A and give it to citizen B so he can, for example, be transported from point A to point B? Isn’t that stealing also? Someone may say, “Well, that’s why we vote.” But can the vote take away a person’s property by legalizing stealing? Of course not!
When we vote this November, hopefully we will choose those who respect the rights of all citizens and reject those who endorse programs which use the power of government to do what individuals can’t do – steal from the people.
How many times have we heard our parents tell us “keep your hands to yourself”? Being one of four siblings, my parents had that phrase on replay—constantly. When we were children, my brothers and I were always trying to boss each other around and get our own way. But, as we grew up, we learned to mind our own business and control our own behavior. We began to realize that we might not LIKE what the other one was doing, but that their behavior was not up to us to control. Each of my brothers and I matured into grown-ups who understand that we are responsible for our own actions and reactions to other people.
The news media as of late has been replete with stories of how some people are “triggered” by words and symbols and even articles of clothing worn by other people. And, it is conceivable that those who are “triggered” are genuinely having an emotional reaction to their surroundings.
Humans are built to be relational, and part of relating is that we respond and react to those around us. Put two babies in a room together, if one of them starts crying, the other one will impulsively join in. But, as we mature, we learn that we can and must control our own responses to those around us. We can feel a “triggered” emotion without reacting to it, and certainly not by trying to control the people and things in our landscape to whom we are having an emotional reaction.
For example, if I were terrified of flying and seeing airplanes flying over my head does that mean that I should try to make airplanes illegal? They make me uncomfortable, people get hurt and injured in airplane accidents—I shouldn’t have to be made uncomfortable by seeing these things flying over my head…right?! Something should be done about these airplanes! Right?!
Of course not. My fears, my phobias, and my emotional reactions are MINE to deal with. It is MY responsibility to learn how to interact with the rest of the world and control my emotional responses through coping skills. I cannot expect the rest of the world to conform to what makes me feel comfortable. I have to learn to “keep my hands to myself.”
A more realistic example of how this scenario tends to play out is with firearms and our Second Amendment Constitutional Right to exercise our God-given Right to self-defense. Some people are made uncomfortable by the fact that I own firearms, even though I am a responsibly armed and trained citizen. They cite times when firearms have been improperly used by others to harm and murder our fellow men and women. They feel deeply that guns are bad, ignoring the obvious fact that millions of times each year guns are used to protect and save lives. The truth is that people who don’t “keep their hands to themselves” hurt other people, and guns are merely one of any number of tools used to maim and murder innocents.
Regardless, there are many who profess that the world would be a better place if everyone would simply listen to their “common sense” ideas of making these tools disappear. However, if those people can take from me my firearms and my right to own those tools, that makes ME feel transgressed and unsafe. Being deprived of my Second Amendment rights makes me deeply uncomfortable. Are my feelings less important than those of other people?
So, where does that leave us? If one person gets their way, the other is left feeling discomfort. What are we to do about that? Our Founding Fathers and Mothers created a solution. In fact, they believed so strongly in the principle of “keeping one’s hands to oneself” that they put everything on the line and fought, bled, starved, and died in order to have the opportunity to write a few documents about this very issue.
The Declaration of Independence was their instruction to the English Monarchy and Army to keep their hands to themselves. It was a boundary-setting written pronouncement of autonomy. It declared where the English Government ends and where the United States Government begins. The Founders followed that up with a missive called the Constitution of the United States, which set the rules for how our own government would behave. And the ultimate “keep your hands to yourself” document is the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights tells our own United States Government what it can NOT do in the personal lives and with the personal possessions of We the People—including our “arms” (guns, knives, swords, bows and arrows, etc.) which free citizens have the right to keep and bear, which means to own and carry. And our Founders, realizing how important firearms are to personal safety and security, included the Second Amendment which codified those inherent rights, and added a clause that you will find nowhere else in our Founding Documents. They wrote, “shall not be infringed.”
It was an emphatic punctuation declaring that no matter what, this right stands unfettered by any other law, decree, or governmental regulation. According to the National Archives website, “[The Bill of Rights] spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for due process of law and reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal Government to the people or the States.”
Part of being a grown-up is knowing that my rights end where my brothers’ and my neighbors’ begin. Keep your hands to yourself. These are timeless values and, in a way, our Founding Fathers and Mothers are continuing to parent each new generation in exactly that wise admonition nearly 300 years after they secured these rights for their own lives.
Cheryl Todd has an extensive history of being a Second Amendment Advocate. Along with being a Visiting Fellow for the Independent Women’s Forum, she is the owner of AZFirearms Auctions, Executive Producer & Co-Host of Gun Freedom Radio, the founder of the grassroots movement Polka Dots Are My Camo, and the AZ State Director for the DC Project.
