I think you mean "certain Supreme Courts in certain time periods agree..." The 1942 Supreme Court said in Valentine v. Chrestensen commercial speech isn't protected by the first amendment at all.
I agree that sticking to what the founding father's said will greatly roll back civil rights, but this is what conservatives frequently claim they want to do.
Curiously, conservatives say this is more democratic since people will get to vote on anything they want without judges getting in the way, even though there's no right to vote in the constitution.
Well first of all tell us how we should read the first amendment. Do we do it based on what the FOUNDING FATHERS believed or what the language of the amendment says, or some other doctrine?
Because if we do it based on what the FOUNDING FATHERS believed, unless you can find a quote where they said the first amendment would apply to advertisements, then we can conclude that the first amendment doesn't apply at all.
I figure the machines must be draining some sort of psychic energy from humans. While there's no such thing as psychic energy as far as we know, that's because all knowledge of it has been left out of the matrix.
If you use the web interface you can set rules to automatically categorize recurring transaction the same way in the future by hitting the details button as you categorize transactions. It works for me. Oddly I don't think the app has that feature.