Rules for Rulers

A commentary on the Constitution, the 2nd Ammendment and life in general.

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

What Age Do I Act?

I knew it. I'm young at heart.

You Are 26 Years Old

Under 12: You are a kid at heart. You still have an optimistic life view - and you look at the world with awe.

13-19: You are a teenager at heart. You question authority and are still trying to find your place in this world.

20-29: You are a twentysomething at heart. You feel excited about what's to come... love, work, and new experiences.

30-39: You are a thirtysomething at heart. You've had a taste of success and true love, but you want more!

40+: You are a mature adult. You've been through most of the ups and downs of life already. Now you get to sit back and relax.

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Speaking of...

Mostly Cajun has posted a very nice rant on the current state of our Union and the seeming use of our beloved Constitution as nothing more than bird cage liner. Here is a small snippet:

The War on Poverty ( cursed forever be the name of Lyndon B. Johnson!) assaults my wallet.

The War on Drugs assaults several clauses of the Bill of Rights.

The new Congress wants to take away my freedom to even post my thoughts on the internet.

A freakin’ FEDERAL AGENCY tells me how much water I can use to flush my freakin’ TOILET!

Both parties are willing to sell this country to illegal Mexicans just for the votes to keep themselves in office.

Go read the whole thing.

Constitutional Originalist - reprise

In a book review of On Beauty by Zadie Smith on the website Author Trek, my post on Constitutional Originalism was referenced by the reviewer (you'll have to scroll way down in the post to find it). Here is the quote:

On Beauty and Being Wrong 5 p. 327 – a “constitutional originalist” is one who wants the US Constitution to be enacted as the drafters originally intended. Although, given that the drafters left room for further amendments to be made, this seems to be a somewhat ridiculous stance.
The author is correct that the drafters left room for further ammendments, however, a constitutional originalist objects to the current process that is used to circumvent the meaning of this important document. To add or change the Constitution is a long and difficult process. The document has an entire section titled Article Five that outlines in great detail, the process of adding to or ammending the constitution.

This seems like a reasonable thing to expect. The supreme law of the land should not be allowed to drift in the wind of public opinion or political expediency. 3/4 of the states must ratify any change. Truly an act of citizens, not subjects.

Instead of changing the meaning of the constitution by a thousand papercuts using Stare Decisis, those that want to abolish the Second Ammendment, curtail freedom of speech (McCain-Feingold), or take private property by force for the benefit of other private entities (Eminent Domain - Kelo), should use the process outlined in the Constitution and not snake around it in the courts. To summarize, the clear language of the Constitution of the United States of America should be used to change said document. I hope that this clarifies my stance on Constitutional Originalism.

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Wilderness Survival

From Mostly Cajun. I would survive. Yeah!

Would you survive in the wild?
Your Result: Yesiree!....

You could live in the wild if you wanted to! You know what to eat, do, and stay away from! You could get shelter, food, water fast and easy-and the right treatments to injuries, snake bites etc...You know the outdoors like the back of your hand!!

Most likely you'll survive....
Not to sure...
Wouldn't last 2 minutes!.....
Would you survive in the wild?
Quizzes for MySpace

Dispatches: Undercover Mosque

Little Green Footballs has posted the UK documentary "Dispatches: Undercover Mosque". Scary stuff. I wonder how much of that sort of thing happens here in the US. Go watch. This is slightly scarier than the "I, Muslim" documentary from August.

Online Degree