(CNN) — A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government’s domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Bush Administration disagrees with the ruling and has appealed.

“We also believe very strongly that the program is lawful,” he said in Washington, adding that the program is “reviewed periodically” by lawyers to determine its effectiveness and ensure lawfulness.

Look, I know I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. Otherwise, someone else might get credit for the idea. We need to reform our government and we need to do it now. This domestic eavesdropping hullaballoo really makes the point - this is urgent.

Let’s break it down. The Bush Administration wanted to do some domestic wiretapping kind of thing. So they did it. And now Congress and activist judges are trying to stop them. How did it come to this?

Well, we need something to keep this from even getting started, right? If the President wants to do something Presidents haven’t really done before, what’s he gonna do to make sure it’s legal? What if there was some kind of a group of people whose job it was to make laws? See where I’m going with this? The President could then go to these people (let’s call them the “Lawsmiths”) and say “Hey, there’s this thing I want to do - would you pass a law so that I can do it?” Easy.

That would be great, right? We ought to figure out how we could make it happen. Maybe hold contests to choose these “Lawsmiths” (that’s a good name, I’m liking it already!). Let every citizen show up and make their choice as to who should represent their area, and then send ‘em off to Washington to work with the President to make the laws we need. Simple as a pimple.

But we need more - what if the President wants to do something that there’s already a law about and he needs to know whether the law allows it? Wouldn’t it be great if we had a whole division of the government that were just people who knew a ton - really, I mean a shitload - about the laws and could make binding judgment calls about what was and wasn’t legal? These guys (let’s call them “decidesketeers”) would be the guys whose opinions you could respect and when they said “no, you can’t do that,” you’d know that if you wanted to do it you’d have to go back to the Lawsmiths to have ‘em change the laws that the Decidesketeers were being sticklers about. Not so hard, is it?

But wait - there should be a totally basic rulebook, right? Full of bedrock principles - things we know for a fact that ought to be legal and illegal. Freedoms and stuff. Something that the Decidesketeers could always refer back to when in doubt. We need to write that thing (let’s call it the “Rule Thing”) and we need it ASAP!

It would be a three-way system: the President doing stuff, the Lawsmiths making laws about what he could do, and the Decidesketeers deciding whether or not everything was on the up-and-up based on the Lawsmiths’ laws and the Rule Thing.

It sounds far-fetched, but I really think it could work. I mean, what’s President Bush suppossed to do when he wants to listen in on phone calls that might involve terrorists? He’s hemmed in by activist judges and a bickering Congress, all yelling about the Constitution, and how can he possibly get things done with all that bullshit? No, he needs a government composed of Lawsmiths and Decidesketeers, with values firmly rooted in the Rule Thing, and we need to give him that.

Let’s make this happen. Write your congresspeople and tell them you demand Lawsmiths. If they resist, take ‘em to court so that we can get some Decisketeers put in place and a Rule Thing adopted. We’re at war, people. We need to get on this. Pronto.