By Douglas V. Gibbs
My
homemade salsa recipe is not mine. My dad came up with the ingredients, heavily influenced by ROTEL's recommendations, and he tweaked it on how to put it together. I follow his recipe pretty much to the tee, adding just a tad more cilantro because of my fondness of that unique Mexican flavor. Once, he told me a story about how another person had asked him how he made his salsa, because they wanted to try the recipe for themselves. He told them how he made it, they took careful notes, and a few weeks later called him and said there was something wrong with the recipe. He went over the recipe with them, and found that they had changed a few ingredients. The amazing part of it all was that they didn't understand why those few changes altered the final product so much.
Instead of using lime juice from a fresh lime, the folks used lemon juice from a plastic container. Instead of room temperature Roma Tomatoes, they used refrigerated beef steak tomatoes. Instead of green onions, they used a yellow onion. Yet, they wondered what was wrong with my dad's recipe he had given them, and blamed him for providing a flawed recipe.
At least they had enough sense to go back to the person that originally came up with the recipe.
On the phone, he went over the recipe for them one more time, this time carefully articulating the original ingredients. Listening to him go over the original recipe, they were able to identify their erroneous substitutions, and then with the next batch produced a product that tasted as it was expected to.
The United States Constitution is much like that original salsa recipe. If followed as originally provided, the product is a system that champions liberty, provides justice, and encourages prosperity. However, over the past two centuries wrong ingredients have been added to the recipe, items that do not belong and actually change the final taste of the resulting political system. We have been convinced by politicians and lawyers that the originally recipe is not quite right, but they have interpreted the lime juice to be artificial lemon juice, that any tomato at any temperature is a good tomato for the recipe, and that a more modern and bulbous onion is preferable over the archaic green onion. Then, as liberty slips through our fingers, we are told the problem is the recipe, that somehow the Constitution is flawed, and that the system of freedom has failed us because the original writings of the Constitution are out of date, out of style, and written by a bunch of selfish, rich, white guys. The large minds of academia, the judiciary, and the political realm have changed the recipe, and now they blame the original recipe for the failure of the final product.
As with my Dad's friends, how can we know where we went wrong with the recipe if we don't fully understand the original recipe as it was intended? Should not the original intent of the United States Constitution be the definitions we seek? How can we remove the erroneous additions that has placed our American System in danger if we don't understand the original recipe as it was designed by the Founding Fathers?
Unfortunately, few people understand the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, and a large segment of our political animals do not approve of the limited government principles established by that document. They not only don't understand the original recipe, but they want to change it to be something that has a proven historical record to fail. We must, based on our knowledge of the original documents, protect original intent, and educate others about the original intent of the United States Constitution.
The Founding Fathers were activists and problem solvers, and they expected us to be the same. They understood that limited government is the essence of liberty. The Constitution was not written to grant to the federal government unlimited powers, but to vest in the government in Washington only those authorities necessary to protect the union, and State Sovereignty. The individualism of the States, and We the People, were supposed to be the guiding principle, using the concepts of choice, self-reliance, personal responsibility, hard work, a free market, and a firm reliance on
divine Providence as the foundation of our system. The rule of law is the set standard, based on moral principles, and righteous governance by the consent of the governed. The law says what it says, and was originally intended to mean what it says. However, the rule of man, based on the whims of the politicians, judges, academics, and the conditioned (since birth in many cases) loudest segments of the population, have inserted so many sour ingredients that the original recipe is almost no longer recognizable. We the People have an opportunity to change that. We the People, however, must be willing to learn, educate, and fight for the original recipe. It is up to us to hand down the perfect recipe of the United States Constitution to our posterity. We cannot pass down freedom through osmosis. It must be handed down, through hard work, dedication, and blood, sweat, and tears. Are we willing to be like the framers? Are we ready for the heavy burden of protecting liberty?
In the final sentence of the Declaration of Independence, the path before us is clear: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of
divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Lives, Fortunes, and sacred Honor.
Learn more about the Constitution by visiting articles by Douglas V. Gibbs on this site, as well as his
classes, and
other events.
Doug's book,
25 Myths of the United States Constitution is on sale now.
The Basic Constitution will be on sale soon.
--
Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Definition of divine Providence: The care and superintendence which God exercises over His creatures.
