You really should spend some time learning about that which you speak. Citizens United was a group formed to oppose Hillary Clinton's run for President. They made a documentary about her career that they intended to distribute leading up to the primaries (and then the general election) in 2008. When the FEC told them that they were not allowed to do so within a certain number of days of the election because it violated campaign finance laws, they sued.
I remember reading about them as they gathered support and money to make the movie. Several prominent members in Citizens United had been speaking out against a Hillary Clinton presidency for several years at that point. So, the idea that this group was formed solely to challenge election finance law is ludicrous.

Actually, there was no time in history that people who studied how the physical world worked believed that the earth is flat.

The problem with your qualifier is that if they do not discover something that can be made to qualify as a serious threat, most of the time no one will ever know they were monitoring the communication. The "serious threat" they find may have no connection to what they were looking for, but if they will face significant punishment for failing to find one, they will find one.

That is actually how the DMCA is written to work.

Ah yes, because only what our high priests have said is true is true. I love your faith in the infallibility of the Supreme Court.

What you fail to realize is that the Justices of the Supreme Court are no more infallible than the members of Congress or the men sitting in the office of President. That means that just because the Supreme Court says something is constitutional does not mean that it is any more than a President signing it into law guarantees that it is constitutional. Both are oath bound to reject unconstitutional laws, but that does not mean they always do so.
Furthermore, Marbury v Madison says that the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional, NOT that it can declare a law constitutional. I know that many people have trouble understanding that this is an important distinction. The failure of the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional does NOT mean that the law is constitutional. It merely means that those arguing the case before the Court failed to convince those on the Court that it was unconstitutional. There is something very scary about those who accept every ruling by the Supreme Court as infallible.

Yet the Dredd Scott decision is generally considered to be an incorrect reading of the Constitution.

So, everybody's money is as good as everyone else's, unless that person is attempting to use that money to assist someone else to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In which case it is perfectly OK to discriminate against them?

I am sorry, but I do not see anything in Article III which says that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. And for that matter, if you look at the Supreme Court decision that is the basis for considering the Supreme Court as arbiter of constitutionality what it says is that the Justices of the Supreme Court are obligated to overturn unconstitutional laws by their oaths of office. A direct corollary of that would be that would be that Presidents are obligated to not sign unconstitutional laws and members of Congress (either House) are obligated to vote against unconstitutional laws. Yet, we frequently have laws come before the Supreme Court which are ruled unconstitutional.

Ah, so because the Supreme Court said that African Americans could not be citizens of the U.S., that should have settled the issue of slavery? No one should have further considered whether slavery was indeed protected by the Constitution? The Supreme Court had ruled, so, for you, the issue was settled.

As I said, you cannot point to a place that the Constitution says that such is the way things should be, but because the Supreme Court says it does, you are willing to accept that it does.

So, the answer is that you cannot, but you are willing to take the Supreme Court's word for it that it is there?

Can you point to the wording of that amendment which applies to private citizens? Here is the full text of the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I am sorry, I do not see anything about where people have to sell you things.However, I do see it as making the argument the person you responded to was making.

Well, I doubt that happened, since he did not live to see DST implemented. Indeed by the time it was implemented, most people no longer used candles as their light source, since by that time electric lighting was widely available.

Rather than institute year round DST (which makes no sense if you think it through), why not just do everything earlier year round? It is the same thing except you do not pretend that you do it at the same time as we currently do (actually, currently we pretend that we do certain things at the same time all year, and then adjust the clocks so that we actually do things earlier for part of the year).