Apparently the Bill of Rights Depends on Buying Elections

Over the weekend there was a meeting called the Iowa Freedom Summit that attracted most of the potential Republican presidential candidates. It was sponsored by Citizens United and Sen. Chuck Grassley decided to kiss their ass by declaring that if the ruling named after their name is overturned, it will destroy the entire Bill of Rights.

The right-wing group Citizens United, which brought the Supreme Court challenge that ultimately allowed for unlimited, undisclosed corporate spending is the summit’s principal sponsor.

The Iowa Republican added that “liberal elements in the United States Senate” who support a constitutional amendment overturning the court’s decision will put the country on a “slippery slope” that “could lead us to the abolishment of the Bill of Rights as we’ve known it for 230 years.”

That’s amazing. So was the Bill of Rights abolished before that ruling came down? I mean, it must have been if his statement is true, right? This is the sort of idiotic rhetoric that should make the audience feel that their intelligence has been insulted, but I’m sure that particular audience didn’t feel that way. And what an inane argument. If we don’t allow billionaires to buy politicians, the entire Bill of Rights will be abolished! All you can do is shake your head.

httpv://youtu.be/zVu5iUcxbuY

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Al Dente

    If we don’t allow billionaires to buy politicians, the entire Bill of Rights will be abolished!

    Well, the billionaires’ rights will be curtailed, at least in the eyes of the billionaires and their minions.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    …could lead us to the abolishment of the Bill of Rights as we’ve known it for 230 years.

    Shouldn’t they be for this? Isn’t the Bill of Rights minus the latter Amendments what they’re after?

  • Loqi

    I remember the days before the Citizens United decision invented the Bill of Rights. Which apparently makes me some 250 years old.

    Back in my day, we didn’t have the right to peacefully assemble. We had to violently assemble!

    @MO

    Just the second. Maybe the tenth. But mostly just the second.

  • eric

    All these old men – billionaires, most of SCOTUS – someone told them their right to use their money to buy elections was in danger, they heard erections, and the rest is history. Its the only explanation that makes sense.

  • caseloweraz

    ‘Scuse me while I put on my grammar-Nazi uniform…

    The Iowa Republican added that “liberal elements in the United States Senate” who support a constitutional amendment overturning the court’s decision will put the country on a “slippery slope” that “could lead us to the abolishment of the Bill of Rights as we’ve known it for 230 years.” (Emphasis added.)

    Senator Grassley shows a distinct lack of grammatical “cognitement” there.

  • rationalinks

    He’s got a point, you know. Won’t someone think of the poor billionaires? How are they supposed to keep the peons in their place if we won’t let them buy politicians?

  • D. C. Sessions

    Modus, eric has totally pwned you on this one.

  • caseloweraz

    I should have checked. “Abolishment” is a real word.