I don't always undermine the Constitution of the United States

[TalkingDog]

[Autumn]

1. A great big K and fucking R

[L0oniX]

2. K & R ...and this is truth.

[riqster]

3. Oh HELL yeah.

[blkmusclmachine]

4. Small, unmarked bills?

Or an anonymous deposit to an offshore account?

Details! Details!

[bearssoapbox]

5. A match made in their bizarro world idea of heaven.

[daleanime]

6. K&R....

[Brigid]

7. I don't know where you got this, but . . .

[Enthusiast]

8. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

Well it should.

[lark]

9. Liars

They are constantly undermining the constitution of the US, that is their goal. The constitution is in the way of their desired state of 100% fascist plutocracy.

[BlindTiresias]

10. What makes you think

They are undermining the constitution? The supreme court has a long record of acting against the interests of the population with perfectly acceptable interpretations of the constitution.

[gratuitous]

11. The First Amendment doesn't mention money

So, to equate money with speech undermines the First Amendment, by pretending that reasonable limits on the amount of money a private person or corporation can spend on a political campaign is an unconstitutional abridgement of the right to free speech. The undermining is compounded by specious reasoning (pace Citizens United) that untrammeled spending does not give rise to corruption or even the appearance of corruption.

What makes you think that money does not have (or even appear to have) a corrupting influence?

[BlindTiresias]

13. you misunderstand

I disagree with citizens united just as I disagree with a large portion of the historical supreme court rulings. The problem is their interpretation of the constitution is valid in a purely institutional sense and the supreme court has a long record of terrible decisions wrapped up in constitutional reasoning. Something is very broken at the constitutional level whether it to be an outdated constitution that is open to too much interpretation so that these kind of interpretations can even be made or the institution of the supreme court itself needs radical revision. Take your pick, but complaining about it being "unconstitutional" is not going to cut it given the huge amount of discretionary interpretation involved in supreme court cases.

[Flying Squirrel]

12. Welcome to DU

Enjoy your stay