Ron Paul, Ralph Nader agree on ‘progressive-libertarian alliance’

A big theme of last week's Movement for the People summit was transpartisanship--focusing on campaigns like a Federal Reserve audit in which libertarians and progressives both worked to bring some openness and accountability to this institution. Will there be libertarian/progressive cooperation in the 112th Congress? What about activists at the grassroots?

by Nathan Diebenow. Posted January 22 on The Raw Story

In this corner, a libertarian, tea party hero who ran several campaigns as a candidate for US president on the Republican ticket. And in that corner, a progressive icon of the left who also ran several campaigns for the US presidency but on the Green Party ticket.

One might think the two men, seemingly ideologically opposed to one another, would rather argue than help one another.

However, on Wednesday's broadcast of Freedom Watch on the Fox Business channel, Judge Napolitano sat down for an amiable interview with Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Ralph Nader to discuss a progressive-libertarian alliance in the 112th session of respective chambers in Congress.

Nader, who has recently called this coalition "the most exciting new political dynamic" in the US today, explained that it works well because both groups stand against corporatists who believe government should be run in the interests of corporations.

"I believe in coalitions," Rep. Paul echoed. "They talk about we need more bipartisanship, and I say we have too much bipartisanship because the bipartisanship we have here in Washington endorses corporatism."

Paul added that he agreed with Nader on a host of issues, such as cutting the US military's budget, ending undeclared US wars overseas, restoring civil liberties and civil rights by dumping from the Patriot Act, and withdrawing from the NAFTA and World Trade Organization agreements.

"I think we should come together and work together, and I think we can," he said, noting that the coalition had previously worked on deficit financing solutions.

Rep. Paul and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the most conservative and most liberal members of their respective chambers, joined forces last session to fight for an audit of the Federal Reserve, a private institution that handles America's monetary policy, which Nader explained is under no legal control of Congress.

"The banks fund the Fed," Nader said. "It doesn't go through the congressional appropriations process as it should under our constitution."

Paul is the current chairman of a congressional subcommittee that would conduct oversight on the US Federal Reserve bank
He explained, however, that he would not have the subpoena power to force Tim Geithner, US Treasury Secretary, and Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, to testify under oath about the Fed's policies. That power is in the hands of the chairman of the full committee, he said.

"But that doesn't mean we'll go lightly on digging up for this information because Ralph is absolutely right on this thing," Paul said.

When asked, Nader stopped short of endorsing a full repeal of the Federal Reserve.

"The Fed, whatever it does, should be a cabinet-level, accountable institution," he proposed instead.

Paul also reiterated his stance that spending on overseas bases in US military's budget should be cut and that US troops should be brought home.

This video is from FoxNews' Freedom Watch, broadcast Jan. 19, 2011, as snipped by Mox News.

Read more...

Friday's DC action: video

Corporate persons frolic on a frosty morning at the Capitol. The theatrics and following march were part of the Movement for the People summit with participation and performances from members of many of the sponsoring groups, as well as Code Pink. Thanks from the organizers to Steffon Moody, Diane Wittner, Sally Rose, Will Rice, Susan Harman, Perry Goodfriend, Jay Marx, and many others.

Read more...

C-SPAN coverage of "For the People" summit

C-SPAN taped several of the panel discussions at the January 20-22 Movement for the People summit, including the keynote speech by Lawrence Lessig on ethics in politics--you can watch the broadcasts here. Highly recommended: the panel discussion on movement building models, with Steve Meacham from City Life/Vita Urbana in Boston, Veronica Dorsey and Ashley Hufnagel of United Workers of Baltimore, Steve Dubb from Community Wealth Project and Evergreen Coops in Cleveland, entrepreneurial activist Paul Glover, and Marty Cobenais Indigenous Environmental Network.

Read more...

From the Village Green to the C-SPAN Screen: 'Legalize Democracy!' Campaigners Attack Corporate Control of Elections

A concise roundup of the whys and hows behind the movement to overturn Citizens United, with a focus on the Coffee Party and Backbone Campaign's "For the People" summit this past weekend in DC. AfD was an event organizer, while vice co-chair Ruth Caplan was one of the speakers on local democratic ordinances against corporate personhood.

by John Nichols. Posted January 21 on The Nation

"The greatest political reform of our time will be to abolish the legal concept of 'corporate personhood' and the inherently anti-democratic equation of money with political speech," says Bill Moyer, the energetic founder and executive director of the Backbone Campaign, the grassroots movement to embolden Americans to push back against corporate power and political corruption.

Across the country Friday, that debate was opening up.

Pushing back against an activist US Supreme Court that has given corporations carte blanche to warp not just our politics but the republic itself, grassroots reformers and activists have used the one-year anniversary of the court's lawless decision in the Citizens United v. FEC case to argue that democracy itself is endangered when corporations are allowed spend without limitation or accountability to influence elections.

The Citizens United ruling eliminated century-old restrictions on corporate spending to support favored candidates and to oppose those who might side with consumers, environmentalists, labor unions and communities.

The corporations recognized the opening given them by the hyper-partisan majority on the high court and seized it.
"The outrageous, misguided and illogical Citizens United decision has empowered corporations and endangered our democracy. Secretive corporate and billionaire donors exerted an outsized influence over Election 2010," explains Public Citizen executive director Robert Weissman. "Their spending now casts a pall over all lawmaking, because any members of Congress who challenge corporate interests know they now risk facing a barrage of attack ads in the next election. And all parties agree that 2010 was just a warm-up for 2012. This is no way to run a democracy. That's why a growing movement is working for passage of a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United."

That movement was making itself heard Friday in dozens of cities and towns across the country, from a "Get Corporations Out of Politics" gathering on the village green in Hyannis, Massachusetts, to a "Rally to Legalize Democracy" in Kent, Washington, to a "Wake for Democracy" in Madison, Wisconsin -- where dozens of activists braved temperatures hovering around zero to cheer speakers on the steps of the State Capitol.

In Washington, a "For the People" Summit coordinated by Moyer and supported by a cross-section of reform groups—including the Alliance for Democracy, American Independent Business Alliance, Backbone Campaign, Center for Media and Democracy, Changing the Game, Code Pink, Coffee Party USA, Common Cause, Democracy Matters, Democrats.com, Fix Congress First, Free Speech For People, MoveOn, Move to Amend, PeaceMajority Report, People for the American Way, Progressive Democrats of America, Public Citizen, and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom—heard Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig and leaders of the movement to amend the Constitution in order to renew the founding faith that free speech in a human right that must be shouted down by corporate spending.

Annabel Park, of the Coffee Party (as opposed to the Tea Party) appeared to argue that the fight must be understood as more than just a struggle between Republicans and Democrats or liberals and conservatives. It goes, she suggested, to the heart of questions about the future of representative democracy. “It’s very hard to make progress on any issue without addressing the problem of money in politics, because right now it takes a nearly impossible amount of effort for ordinary people to compete with the daily influence that entrenched lobbyists enjoy," she explained. "To succeed, we need to step outside the traditional left-right-center framework and find common cause across the political divide.”

C-SPAN covered the event and has achived the video as: "Impact of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission."

John Bonifaz, co-founder and director of Free Speech For People campaign, told activists: "Free speech and other constitutional rights are for people, not corporations. The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United will go down in history as contrary to the constitutional principles set forth by the Framers establishing a government of, for, and by the people. On this one-year anniversary of the ruling, we must renew our commitment to fighting for a 28th amendment to the Constitution that ensures that people, not corporations, govern in America."

That message was echoed by Lisa Graves, a former deputy Assistant Attorney General and top aide to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"A year ago, we warned that the Roberts Court was wrong to 'celebrate' expanding the power of corporations in our elections and policymaking," says Graves, the executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy and a key player in the Move to Amend campaign. "The unparalleled spending by Wall Street in this past election has proven the validity of our fears of the power of their money to spin the issues and distort our democracy and that's why nearly a million Americans have signed petitions against the Supreme Court's terrible decision and millions more will join us in this fight the coming years."

That broad grassroots support, in combination with the organizing that is going on nationwide, gives Moyer confidence that, despite the difficulty of amending the Constitution, and despite the even greater difficulty of holding corporations to account, this is a movement that—one year after the Citizens United ruling—is emerging as a powerful and effective force for change.
The task that lies ahead is, indeed, "monumental." But, says Moyer, "I believe…it can be achieved in the coming years built on a foundation of community-based battles to return power to the People."

Read more...

Monterey members act on Citizens United anniversary for rights and protection of water

Monterey County (CA) AfD'ers, members of WILPF Monterey County, and other supporters leafletted at three local post offices on the first anniversary of the Citizens United decision. The group's two-sided leaflets spoke about Citizen’s United and asked people to sign the MovetoAmend petition, with contact info for local organizing. The other side supported a local campaign to buy out CalAm, an international corporation that provides water to the Monterey peninsula, and return water to local public control.

Chapter member Sue Hubbard writes, "At all the locations we found people very reception to the idea of taking corporate money out of elections with a low number of negative reactions. I personally was in Carmel which is a very wealthy area so I was heartened to find so many people who were strongly against Citizen’s United."

In addition to leafletting, Susan spoke on a local progressive radio station, and member Darby Moss Worth published the following letter in the Monterey County Herald:

Most Americans know that corporations are not people and that money is not speech.

But one year ago — Jan. 21, 2010 — the United States Supreme Court ruled that corporations have First Amendment free speech rights (Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission). This allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts of bribery money on elections. Thus, the controversial "corporate personhood" was affirmed as the law of the land and ensured corporate domination of politics.

Personhood in the 14th Amendment can be traced to a decision made in 1886 to insert the term (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad). Before that time, there were restrictions placed on corporations to protect the people.

The problem is growing corporate power. At this current time of general austerity, increasing unemployment and poverty, we cannot ignore the state of our nation and the increasing danger that our government is no longer of, by and for the people.

The Monterey County Alliance for Democracy urges you to sign the petition at www.movetoamend.com and join us for discussion and further action at 12:30p.m. on the first Saturday of each month at the Peace Resource Center in Seaside.

Read more...

Vermont submits resolution calling for amendment to eliminate corporate personhood

On Friday, Vermont state senator Virginia Lyons presented resolution in the Vermont legislature calling for a constitutional amendment to eliminate corporate personhood. Sources say it has a good chance of passing, with 11 out of 30 state senators co-sponsoring so far.

The resolution's language points out the pressing need to curb the political influence of corporations, noting that "the profits and institutional survival of large corporations are often in direct conflict with the essential needs and rights of human beings." In pursuit of profit, corporations "have used their so-called rights to successfully seek the judicial reversal of democratically enacted laws.” This "intolerable societal reality" means that the "only way" toward a solution is the amendment of the Constitution "to define persons as human beings.”

David Cobb, who is a spokesperson for Move to Amend, helped write the resolution and has been most recently speaking in Vermont about the history of personhood--corporate and other--and the need for a constitutional amendment eliminating corporate personhood and the notion that money is speech. You can watch his interview with "Near and Far" host Richard Kemp below.

You can read more about the Vermont resolution here.

Read more...

"Judges Ramble" in Portland focuses on Citizens United and corporate power

Portland Alliance for Democracy held its First Annual Judges Ramble on Friday. The "justices," armed with gavels and umbrellas, walked to to Pioneer Courthouse Square, City Hall and the federal courthouse. The "good justices" talked to onlookers about the Citizens United case and the need to eliminate corporate personhood and corporate access to personhood rights; the "bad" justices sported sashes with corporate logos.

Michael Munk, who played Justice Anthony Kennedy, told the Willamette Week that the theatricality of the Judges Ramble shouldn't outweigh the harm of the Citizens United decision.

“This is something to attract public attention,” said Munk, author of The Portland Red Guide, a history of radical movements in Portland. “This was a very serious decision that changes the entire legal history of who is entitled to free speech. Pretending that a corporation has the same legal standing as an individual person sounds to us so absurd."

See additional photos here!

The Portland chapter will hold another event tomorrow (Tuesday, January 25) on "Citizens United and Beyond" from 7 - 9 p.m. at the First Unitarian Church, Eliot Hall, SW 12th Ave and Salmon. For information, see the chapter website's events page.

Read more...

Do corporations have a right to privacy?

The Supreme Court will rule later this year in a case that seeks to grant personal privacy rights to corporations by relaxing a provision in the Freedom of Information Act, although at this point justices seem unconvinced that the concept of corporate personhood extends that far. Let's hope they stick to that opinion.

Published January 22 by The Los Angeles Times
In a case that could erect new barriers to public access to government information, the Supreme Court this week was asked to hold that corporations have a right to "personal privacy." Fortunately, justices from across the ideological spectrum appeared skeptical that such a counterintuitive concept could be found either in the law or in a dictionary.

At issue is whether the Federal Communications Commission will release information about AT&T under the Freedom of Information Act. That law provides several exemptions, including one for trade secrets and another for information that "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" — an obvious reference to individual privacy.

AT&T is claiming the "personal privacy" protection in connection with a settlement it reached with the FCC over possible overbilling for work on a communications technology program for schools. A trade association representing some of AT&T's competitors is seeking the information.

Unlike last year's Citizens United ruling, this case doesn't deal with whether corporations have constitutional rights. The issue instead is whether the courts should award corporations an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act that Congress didn't see fit to grant them.

Nor should it have: Corporations already receive protection in the form of an exception for trade secrets, and individual employees can invoke the personal privacy exception. That wasn't enough for AT&T, whose lawyer told the court that a ruling for the FCC might lead to the release of embarrassing e-mails disparaging customers or government regulators.

For some purposes, corporations have been considered "persons" under the law. But AT&T's argument that that theory should be extended to grant "personal" privacy rights to companies is unpersuasive. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. offered several examples of situations in which a noun and the adjective based on its root had different meanings. "You have 'craft' and 'crafty,' " he said. "Totally different."

Grammar aside, the notion of corporate personal privacy is a novel one. After asking AT&T's lawyer for an example of anyone who referred to the "personal privacy" of General Motors, Justice Antonin Scalia said: "I cannot imagine somebody using the phrase like that."

If the justices don't want to pore over dictionaries or conduct a poll about the use of "corporate personal privacy," they can decide this case by considering the purpose of the law they are interpreting. The Freedom of Information Act is designed to make documents available to the public with only limited exceptions. Any ambiguity in the law should be resolved in favor of disclosure. A decision to do so would be an example of judicial craft, not craftiness.

Read more...

Why not be a corporate person?

Laughs of the day: Have you considered the advantages of being a corporate person? These videos from Movement for the People highlight a new frontier in self-actualization. Haven't you always wanted to be an Inc.?



Hate paying taxes? Not a problem when you're an inc. with a PO Box in the Cayman Islands! "We're here, we're corporate, get used to it!"



More videos here!

Read more...

New bumperstickers and brochures!

Our new political bribes bumpersticker gets the word out on the street--ending corporate personhood to end corporate rule and the tyranny of big-money politics.

You can see the "Tools for Organizing" page on our website for ordering information for the sticker, as well as for our new brochure, "Corporate Bribery in the United States," which looks at the history of how corporations acquired access to the First Amendment, and the effect that unlimited spending has had on legislative accountability to voters.

Tomorrow's the first anniversary of the Citizens United decision. Make sure that we have something to celebrate on January 21, 2012 by educating and organizing against corporate personhood in your community.

Read more...

January 20-22: For the People Summit in DC!

Join the Alliance for Democracy and a coalition of advocacy groups, including The Coffee Party, The Backbone Campaign, Move to Amend, the Center for Media and Democracy, and concerned citizens across the country at the For the People Summit, to be held in Washington, from Thursday, January 20 to Saturday, January 22.

The summit marks the first anniversary of the disastrous Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, and features opportunities to lobby, protest, and collaborate on a movement to build an election and campaign system free of political bribery.

Visit the new Movement for the People website and click on "D.C. Summit" find out more about the schedule, participants and topics.

Note: Early-Bird Registration ends January 10! Discounts are available on registration and hotel accommodations. See the Movement for the People site for information.

Read more...

Expect a more obvious plutocracy in 2011

AfD Portland chapter president David Delk wrote in a recent blog post that while austerity measures in Greece and Ireland brought people out into the streets for days of protest, the mood here remains docile. "Barely a voice is raised to defend the American working people as we are told that the government is too large, spends too much money on social programs like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and education. Certainly, the American people have not moved to the street. They don’t even dare talk about it amongst themselves," he writes.

Obama's tax reform package was only the "latest stage of the attack of the rich and powerful on the middle class.  The attack began with President Kennedy when he said we needed to encourage business  by reducing the highest tax rates on the wealthy and on corporations.  It continued with President Reagan and his attacks on the unions. President Clinton pushed forward the Pres George H.W. Bush North American Trade Agreement to further empower the multinational corporations and dis-empower labor and environmental activists.  The tax cuts continued.  More so-called free trade agreements were imposed.  With each new law, the people continued to lose all power."

Last year's Citizens United decision laid it out plain: "The United States is no longer a democracy; the United States is a plutocracy.  No longer 'of the people, for the people, by the people', but 'of the wealthy, for the wealthy, by the wealthy.'

David recommends this article by Jack Rasmus, published in In These Times, as a possible predictor of how the middle class will be eaten up to support the incomes and privileges of the well-to-do. Look for drastic spending cuts in the start of 2011, and the institution of a US variant of the austerity programs being promoted across the globe.

Read more...

Another way of measuring the cost of elections

Not-so-fun fact from the Orlando Sentinel:
"This year's gubernatorial election was the most expensive in Florida history. Over the two-month general election campaign, Republican Rick Scott and Democrat Alex Sink together spent more than $55 million on ads, subjecting the average Orlando TV viewer to their commercials 309 times – equal to two hours and 34 minutes, or roughly the length of the movie 'Avatar.'"

Read more...

Kenya adds the right to enjoy nature to its constitution

Editor's note: Thanks to Ben from Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, who corrected the original headline to this post.

In this post on Alternet.org, Jay Walljasper notes that Kenya has joined Ecuador in defending environmental viability in its new constitution.

The document's Article 42 says that "Every person has the right to a clean and healthy environment, which includes the right to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations through legislative and other measures." Article 69 encourages public participation in environmental management and protection, protects indigenous knowledge, establishes environmental assessment systems, and mandates government protection for tree cover.

And, Walljasper notes, what Kenya and Ecuador have done challenges the prevailing "first world" view that "all significant environmental progress begins in wealthy nations, which then shoulder the noble task of aiding and arm-twisting poor nations to do their share in taking care of the planet." In fact, the opposite is just as likely true: "Loking at per capita rates of greenhouse and toxic emissions, you might think ... the overdeveloped nations of the world need to follow the example of their poor neighbors to the south, which dump far fewer pollutants into the global commons."

While "it is easier for a poor nation to implement such rights than to enforce them... Ecuador’s and Kenya’s actions are more than symbolic. They show the possibilities for making environmental protection part of the bedrock of our legal systems." In fact, Walljasper quotes Burns Weston, Senior Research Scholar at the Vermont Law School, who suggests that Kenya’s new constitution might be a model for U.S. states "to improve their state constitutions along these lines."

Read more...

Dear States, Watch Out for the Privatizers

Here's a heads-up in an area where local watch-dogging and organizing can prevent your city or state from being penny-wise and pound-foolish by turning local infrastructure over to private investors. Jack Lohman's website is the excellent MoneyedPoliticians.net.

by Jack Lohman. Published by The Capital Times (Madison, WI) January 3

State after state is reporting dire financial conditions - California, Illinois, New Jersey, and even our own Wisconsin. The losses are so deep that only bankruptcy seems an option. But wait - there's another ploy coming to a theater near you! They've been preparing the soil and soon they'll spring it on us.

It's called privatizing.

It's always the same false claim: Private is more efficient than public. The public unions are impossible to work with, they'll say, and we have a corporation that can save us dollars.

Rarely is that true, especially after they add all of the exorbitant salaries, bonuses, shareholder profits, marketing and political bribes that must be passed on to the taxpayer. These costs usually far exceed government waste, unless offset by egregiously low salaries that further harm the economy.

Need proof? Privatized Medicare Advantage costs taxpayers 17 percent more than government Medicare, which provides care to 80 percent of our seniors. Privatized Blackwater troops in the Mideast cost five times what U.S. troops cost. But Blackwater executives give campaign dollars and our troops don't, so what else would you expect?

Politicians now have us right where they want us: desperate.

They'll take state assets - say, roads - and lease them to a private company, which will then add tolls and recoup their investment in 10 years and pocket the profits thereafter. And part of those profits will go to the friendly politicians.

Or the politicians will sell state-owned buildings and then lease them back so the private company can make the profits from the taxpayers. Or farm out housekeeping and security services to for-profit companies, as was done by Gov.-elect Scott Walker in Milwaukee.

Walker, as Milwaukee County executive, proposed leasing out Milwaukee's Mitchell Airport and then leasing it back to help the county financially. Fortunately, he was elected governor before that could be pulled off, but now the state must contend with similar crazy ideas. No successful airport privatizations have been implemented nationally, and higher airport and traveler fees would have been necessary.

It's the same old story, but will we ever learn?

We voters are too hung up on "our side" being right and "their side" being wrong, when in fact BOTH sides are corrupt. Republicans hate Democrats -- or the reverse -- when in fact we should be taxpayers who hate crooked politicians who bargain away our assets. And as long as we battle each other they are free to give away the store.

Politicians want us to believe that they have a handle on this whole economy thing, but they don't. All they know is that the guy sending the campaign check wants this or that, and if the politician wants the checks to continue, that guy will get his wish.

How much deeper into our pockets will we allow? Now is the time to say stop!

State assets are now on the line, and next comes privatizing water rights. Food is some ways off because family farms haven't all been bought off yet, but that time will come. Unless we have the gumption to stop the drain. NOW!

We must have 100 percent political turnover every two years until we get the politicians off the corporate dole.

Read more...

AfD Portland statement in support of Wikileaks

Alliance for Democracy of Portland, Oregon, USA, would like to publicly express solidarity with Julian Assange, the investigative journalist and internet publisher of WikiLeaks website, which he founded in 2006. Since then, Assange has won numerous awards including a Media Award for excellence in human rights journalism in 2009 from Amnesty International (New Media) for exposing extrajudicial assassinations in Kenya. The legitimacy of his status as a journalist has been recognized by the Center for Investigative Journalism.

In a world where most sources of news are owned and controlled by governments and large corporations, which use said organs of public media to aggrandize themselves and suppress news unfavorable to their own bottom line, we support international freedom of the press and those pressmen, presswomen, and publishers who operate without the constraints of corporate control.

In December 2010, the United Nations' Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank La Rue, said Assange or other WikiLeaks staff should not face legal accountability for any information they disseminated, noting that "if there is a responsibility by leaking information it is exclusively of the person that made the leak and not of the media that publish it. And this is the way that transparency works and that corruption has been confronted in many cases." 


We refute Assange’s condemnation by many governments, including the United States—in a remarkable stance against our own First Amendment—for his exposure of embarrassing, slanderous verbiage by public officials in many countries, and the publication of videos showing United States forces engaging in criminal acts of shooting journalists and civilians
 

In a continuing conspiracy to obstruct the freedom of the press and the free speech rights of Mr. Assange guaranteed in the First Amendment, VISA, MasterCard, PayPal have all stopped processing contributions to WikiLeaks. Major corporations in the business of money handling should not cut the flow of money to a publication in order to control its content, on behalf of the US government.

This is a civil liberties issue. We support Julian Assange’s right to publish truthful news on a free access internet source such as WikiLeaks. We decry his persecution and hounding by the Swedish government on trumped-up charges of alleged sexual offenses.

Whether or not the Swedish accusations have merit, Mr. Assange has not been charged, much less convicted, of any crime. It is quite remarkable that he was held in Britain without bail as if charged with a capital crime, although in fact merely wanted for questioning. This is indicative that the Swedish matter is being exaggerated as intimidation or retaliation for Wikileaks' unwelcome revelations.

We support the right of Julian Assange to publish WikiLeaks on the basis of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. That amendment is copied below least we forget the text of the amendment, These are rights explicitly retained by the American people when the Constitution of the United States was adopted.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
 

Read more...