(NaturalNews) In name, it appears as though it would enshrine the fundamental and inalienable authority of parents over their children into the basic framework of American law. But the so-called Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) is hardly the pro-freedom amendment to the U.S. Constitution that its creators claim it is, as it actually threatens to transfer the inviolable jurisdiction of parental authority over children to the federal government.
Though many people today are unaware of it, America's founding fathers recognized that parents have a God-given responsibility to care for and protect their children. This responsibility is not a "right" granted to parents by the federal government, but rather a mandate built into the natural order that cannot be revoked or altered in any way by outside forces, including the federal government.
Because of this, the founding fathers crafted what we now know as the Constitution, which clearly enumerates, or spells out, the specific powers that We the People have delegated to the federal government -- and these powers do not include any authority whatsoever over children. In fact, the federal government has very little power over anything, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.
This is an important concept that you must understand in order to see why the PRA is problematic. As spelled out in immense detail by Publius Huldah over at FreedomOutpost.com, passage of the PRA would essentially place parental authority under the ultimate jurisdiction of the federal government rather than the God of the universe, granting the Supreme Court the power to rule over matters involving such authority.
"The name, 'parental rights amendment' (PRA), sounds so good! But it actually strips parents of their God-delegated authority over their children, and transfers that authority to the federal government," writes Huldah. "The PRA would transform 'families' and 'children' from matters over which the federal government now has no lawful authority to matters under the total control of the federal government."
Most of the controversy stems from Section 3 of the PRA, which dictates that both federal and state governments can override or infringe parental authority if it serves the "highest order" of government interests. This disturbing and vague language would most assuredly open up a Pandora's box of government authoritarianism, in which federal judges would be free to redefine the terms of parental authority at whim, as long as it serves the "highest order."
"The PRA is a delegation of lawmaking power over families and children to the federal government," adds Huldah. "Congress may make whatever laws it pleases pertaining to YOUR children; the Executive Branch may issue whatever rules or orders it pleases pertaining to YOUR children -- and under Section 3 of the PRA, federal judges will decide whether these laws, orders & rules serve the government's interest. If so, you lose."
Tell your representatives to OPPOSE the Parental Rights Amendment
Our representatives need to know that parental rights are already recognized by the U.S. Constitution, and have never been under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Passage of the PRA, or anything like it that erroneously assumes that the federal government has any authority over families or children, would be fundamentally disastrous as it would deconstruct the very nature of true parental authority. It would also be fundamentally unconstitutional, which is important to remember should the bill "pass."