I’ve not been tagged but none of the participants are tagging anyone this time around, so I guess I’ll tag myself. Not that tagging oneself is all that unusual, they say 95% of male bloggers have done it before and the other 5% are liars, so I figure it’s my turn anyway. So here’s what I’d do if I were temporary dictator:

1. Enact a “no, you dummies” amendment to the First Amendment so as to clarify that “speech” includes “money contributed for purposes of promoting political speech.”
2. Since we’re busy tinkering with the First Amendment anyway, add another provision allowing … nay, requiring … all consumer protection laws, especially truth in advertising laws, to apply to political and commercial speech alike. Wanna legalize fraud? OK, you’re the legislature, you can do that. But if you want to make it a crime to lie about the widgets you’re trying to sell to the most gullible elements of society, then you’d better also make it a crime to lie about the much more nefarious political widgets you’d force down all of our throats if elected.
3. Prohibit Congress from even considering replacing the income tax with a national sales tax until all advocates of the latter are in full compliance with #2, i.e., don’t use the phrase “fair tax” to describe a tax that may or may not be a good idea, but which in any event has squat to do with fairness.
4. Aw hell, between the “fair” tax, HughesNet’s “fair” access policy, every teachers union’s “fair share” agreement and worst of all, “FAIR,” let’s outlaw the word “fair” altogether.
5. Delete the militia clause from the Second Amendment. Maybe the Supreme Court will find some deep, useful meaning in there, but I’m not holding my breath. Mostly that throwaway clause has accomplished nothing except to (1) give the gun-banners cover for arguing that the Second Amendment doesn’t really mean what it says, and (2) confuse the hell out of the rest of us.
6. National CCW.
7. Some would-be Nifongs of the Constitution are advocating making it a crime to pass an unconstitutional law. Bugger that. It’s bad enough having courts strike down laws they don’t like on the specious view that they are “unconstitutional,” do we really want to add criminal penalties into the mix? Besides, as those who study the Constitution rather than worship it are generally aware, most of that document is pretty damned technical. It’s not a holy writ that prohibits all Very Bad Things, nor does it necessarily allow all Good Things. That said, every civil officer does take an oath to defend it, so what say we meet the CONstitutionalists halfway with a measure that makes it a crime to knowingly enact an unconstitutional law, and also make it a crime, carrying the same penalty, to knowingly (or shoulda-known-ingly) attack the constitutionality of a constitutional statute in court. This important principle was established in the 1921 case of Goose v. Gander, but has yet to be implemented across the country. It’s about time.
8. Depending on my mood, either repeal Section 1983 outright, or replace it with a loser-pay rule. If the ACLUs and the Yagmans of the world want to make a career out of suing the government taxpayers for supposed civil rights violations, fine, but they’d better pick their targets carefully.
9. Criminal jury acquittals would be appealable.
10. Jurors inclined to refuse to apply the law, as instructed by the court, would be allowed a 45 minute recess to obtain their toothbrushes, which they would definitely need if they do it. Exception: if either party to a civil or criminal suit is a known “fully informed” jury activist/nullificationist, the opposing party will have the option of waiving the rule of law and instructing the jury to give the bugger a taste of his own medicine.

UPDATE: Ride Fast describes my dictatorship as “scary.” Well, duh. Aren’t they all? Given that he also calls for national CCW, I’ll assume that’s not what he finds scary about mine in particular. Maybe the part about jury nullification coming home to roost? I can just here the counter-argument now: “No, dammit, nullification is only there so juries can nullify the laws I don’t like, not the ones that protect me!”