tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post5931178607182101999..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: A Response to Neal Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born CitizenMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger205125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-56518850735931481162016-03-13T12:40:20.892-04:002016-03-13T12:40:20.892-04:00Got it. Thank you for taking the time to explain t...Got it. Thank you for taking the time to explain this.nxshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17163755989193810252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-40812325392603734092016-03-12T19:39:34.651-05:002016-03-12T19:39:34.651-05:00nxs,
A plain and simple reading of the unanimous...nxs, <br /><br />A plain and simple reading of the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision of Minor v. Happersett shows that the Court left no question open about what the definition of a natural born citizen is and who is included and excluded from that status, when it held: <br /><br />The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.<br /><br />Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875). <br /><br />Minor explained that under the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution all children born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of their children’s birth were “natives, or natural born citizens,” and that all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners,” who could be naturalized to be citizens of the United States. Congress, in the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, had this common law rule in mind when in those Acts it treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens and in need of naturalization. <br /> <br />The only question that Minor left open was whether a child born "within the jurisdiction" to alien parents was a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, an amendment which both Minor and Wong Kim Ark said did not define a natural born citizen. Virginia Minor was born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents. Hence, she was without any doubt a citizen of the United States. Since she was a natural born citizen and therefore ipso fact a citizen of the United States, there was no need for Minor to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment as did Wong Kim Ark with respect to Wong, who was not a natural born citizen because, while he was born in the U.S., he was born to alien parents. So, Wong Kim Ark answered the Fourteenth Amendment question left open by Minor. Wong Kim Ark, in interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship sentence, did not define a natural born citizen any differently than did Minor. <br /><br />Applying these principles, neither George Romney nor Barack Obama are natural born citizens. Minor, a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, trumps the "authorities" you cited, Black’s Law Dictionary, Bancroft’s History of the U.S. (1876), William Rawle, and Lynch v. Clarke. When we want to know the meaning of a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment, we look to Wong Kim Ark. But when we want to know the meaning of an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States, we look to Minor. <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-79055154401420598542016-03-12T18:44:48.290-05:002016-03-12T18:44:48.290-05:00George Romney was born in Mexico outside the juris...George Romney was born in Mexico outside the jurisdiction of the United States.<br /><br />Obama was born in Hawaii which at the time of his birth was US soil.<br /><br />Black’s Law Dictionary defines “native” as “a natural-born subject or citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.” <br /><br />How can you naturalize a citizen that was already born on US soil? <br /><br />Black defines “naturalize” as “to confer citizenship upon an alien; to make a foreigner the same, in regard to rights and privileges, as if he were a native citizen or subject.” <br /><br />Bancroft’s History of the U.S. (1876) VI, xxvi, 27, states, “Every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural-born American citizen.” <br /><br />"Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States and needs no naturalization." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 at page 702; 18 S. Ct. 456, 472, 42 L ed 89,<br /><br />Obama by virtue of his birth on US soil could not be "naturalized".<br /><br />In Rawie’s view on the Constitution of the United States, page 86, it is stated: “Every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” <br /><br />U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, l.c. 674 the court stated: “There is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the sovereignty. So far as we are informed there is no authority, legislative, executive, or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory, or as mere prospective), conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens, have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.” <br /><br />A natural-born citizen of the United States, as that term is used in the Constitution of the United States, means a citizen born within the territorial limits of the United States and subject to the laws of the United States at the time of such birth. This does include children born to alien parents who are present within the territorial limits of the United States “in amity” i.e. with the consent of the United States, and subject to its laws at the time of birth. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649, Luria v. U.S., 231 US 9, Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162.<br /><br />In the case of Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. 583, N.Y.), the Vice-Chancellor stated that he entertained no doubt “that every person born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural born citizen.” nxshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17163755989193810252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-34233396371980868162016-01-13T12:13:55.416-05:002016-01-13T12:13:55.416-05:00Robert Laity,
John McCain was born in Panama to ...Robert Laity, <br /><br />John McCain was born in Panama to U.S citizen parents where were serving the armies of the state. He is therefore reputed born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. That makes him a natural born citizen. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 217 (1758)("§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state or in the house of its minister at a foreign court. For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.")Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-75239782995248760422016-01-13T10:02:53.093-05:002016-01-13T10:02:53.093-05:00I do not agree that McCain is a Natural born Citiz...I do not agree that McCain is a Natural born Citizen based on his parents military service. He has citizenship by Statute but cannot be made a Natural Born Citizen by legislation as determined in the dispute which led to the 1795 repeal of the 1790 provision which "considered" persons born abroad to citizen Parents as NBCs. Being an NBC requires the physical birth IN the USA to Parents who are both Americans. McCain was born outside the USA in Colon,Panama. Bases in foreign lands are NOT US Soil. In any event, the PCZ was never an incorporated territory of the USA and Colon was specifically excluded from the parameters of the PCZ by treaty as was Panama City,Panama. Robert Laityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00286404529595762438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-21526092938254577622015-12-29T22:44:15.864-05:002015-12-29T22:44:15.864-05:00Mario,
Although we all agree that 212 is the def...Mario,<br /> Although we all agree that 212 is the definative source for natural born citizen. How about we consider the following. <br /><br />213 refers to resident aliens (inhabitants)<br /><br />214 Naturalization-Begining with the Act of 1790 we allowed those that lived in a state for two years a resident to naturalize as well as those children born abroad of a citizen father who had been a resident of the United States (this prevented second generation foreign born from being citizens)<br /><br />215 Children born abroad in the first sentence says that "It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed." Do we account for this in the Act of 1790 under section 214?<br /><br />216 Children born at sea. We follow this. <br /><br />217 Children born in the Armies. We account for them under 214 in that we grant no special allocations for the children born in the Armies any different than we do children born of other citizens. The Act of 1790 makes no distinction or am I missing something. If this is the case they are treated as if they are section 215 children of which we account for under 214. <br /><br />With the lack of historical legislation to grant specific allowances for a child born in the Armies of which the Congress has attempted as recently as 2008 and the stance the founders had on standing Armies I think that my theory is a more practical application and understanding of how the founders utilized chapter 19. <br /><br />From the man who was part of both the Act of 1790 and 1795 which is the thorn in our side.<br />http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24671<br /><br />In June of 1787, James Madison addressed the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on the dangers of a permanent army. “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty,” he argued. “The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” That Madison, one of the most vocal proponents of a strong centralized government—an author of the Federalist papers and the architect of the Constitution—could evince such strongly negative feelings against a standing army highlights the substantial differences in thinking about national security in America between the 18th century and the 21st.<br /><br />28 February 2008 S.2678[24] Claire McCaskill MO as part of a military funding bill “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.”<br /><br />Your thoughts kind sir. Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05289008983390330396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-63650081776541906512015-11-19T17:09:09.181-05:002015-11-19T17:09:09.181-05:00John Laity,
John McCain was born in Panama to U....John Laity, <br /><br />John McCain was born in Panama to U.S citizen parents where were serving the armies of the state. He is therefore reputed born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. That makes him a natural born citizen. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 217 (1758)("§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state or in the house of its minister at a foreign court. For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.") <br /><br />Maybe you will reconsider your position in light of this authoritative source upon which the Framers relied for their definition of an Article II natural born citizen. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-21328831825610626932015-11-18T19:51:36.624-05:002015-11-18T19:51:36.624-05:00I disagree that John McCain is a "Natural-Bor...I disagree that John McCain is a "Natural-Born Citizen" The strict requirement is that an NBC is one born IN a country of citizen parents. McCain is a "Citizen"by statute but he is not a "Natural Born Citizen". McCain meets the 100% American Jus Sanquinis requirement since both his parents were Americans themselves. However, McCain does not meet the U.S. Jus soli requirement. McCain was born in Colon,Panama. Bases in foreign nations are NOT U.S. soil. Pursuant to the Panama Canal Zone Treaty, Colon,Panama and Panama City, Panama were explicitly excluded from the parameters of the "Panama Canal Zone".McCain was born outside the United States. Robert Laityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00286404529595762438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-45986066995573716562015-06-01T22:28:59.770-04:002015-06-01T22:28:59.770-04:00Great natural born Citizen diagrams...
Hi Mario,
...Great natural born Citizen diagrams...<br /><br />Hi Mario,<br /><br />A few days ago on BirtherReport.com someone posted a link to a blog with accurate diagrams showing the difference between a singular U.S. natural born citizens vs. dual U.S./foreign citizens. <br /><br />Here is the url ( http://petesresearchonnaturalborncitizenship.blogspot.com/ ).<br /><br />I liked the diagrams so I posted some of the diagrams on my blog <br />( http://originalbirtherdocument24.blogspot.com/ ) <br />with some of the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates.<br /><br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br /><br />P.S.<br /><br />Relative to Article II, Sen. Rand Paul's vociferous and correct rant against the Patriot Act yesterday, Sunday May 31, 2015, is what is needed on the floors of the House and the Senate. <br /><br />If political push comes to political shove, maybe Sen. Paul, if he is not aware of Vattel, Minor v.Happersett, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, and et al., and singular U.S. citizenship vs. dual u.S./foreign citizenship, maybe the Senator will also vociferously comment about the original genesis original intent reason for original birther John Jay's underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to his friend George Washington as a reference to meaning only singular U.S. citizenship by being born only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizen married parents.<br /><br />Who knows, maybe Sen. Paul, or Carly Fiorina, or, who knows, maybe even Sen. Cruz and Sen. Rubio, may see this note, someday, and also see the natural born citizen diagrams created by Peter Lettkeman.<br /><br />Art<br />U.S. Constitution: The Origian Birther Document of the Union<br />( http://originalbirtherdocument24.blogspot.com/ )ajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-91871665002677234312015-05-24T11:16:30.219-04:002015-05-24T11:16:30.219-04:00II of II
In contradistinction, a natural born ci...II of II <br /><br />In contradistinction, a natural born citizen was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797); Minor v. Happersett (1875); accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). A natural born citizen had to do nothing other than be born in the county to parents who were both members of that country. No law, including any naturalization act or treaty, was needed to make him or her a natural born citizen. This universal and immutable principle that defined a natural born citizen was incorporated into American national common law. See Minor (so defined a natural born citizen under the common law to which the Framers would have looked for the definition). During the Founding and until the Cable Act of 1922 was passed, married parents of children were either both U.S. citizens or both aliens. Hence, citizen parents meant that both father and mother had to be citizens. The liberation of wives from their husband’s citizenship done by the 1922 Cable Act has not nor could it amend the constitutional rule that both father and mother had to be citizens at the time of their child’s birth in their country in order to make a natural born citizen. <br /><br />The definition of a natural born citizen as reflected in American common law is the supreme law of the land and to date has never been changed by any constitutional amendment or decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. <br /> <br />The Anti-Obots (which is not the Republican Establishment) argued that de facto President Barack Obama was not a natural born citizen because, even if he was born in the United States, he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents (his father was a non-U.S. citizen). They also maintain that Senator Ted Cruz is also not a natural born citizen (he was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and non-U.S. citizen father). Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal are also not natural born citizens (they were born in the United States to two non-U.S. citizen parents). Obama (if born in the United States), Rubio, and Jindal are “citizens” “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment, by the only fact of being born in the United States. Cruz is a “citizen” “at birth” under a naturalization Act of Congress by the only fact of being born to one U.S. citizen parent. None of them were born with the complete facts and circumstances needed at birth to be a natural born citizen. They are all missing either birth to two U.S. citizen parents or birth in the United States. They are all therefore born not in sole allegiance to the United States, but also subject to a foreign power, a condition that the Framers did not allow future Presidents and Commanders to have. Being born subject to foreign powers and influence, they are not nor can they be natural born citizens. <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-41066825233621484902015-05-24T11:15:44.455-04:002015-05-24T11:15:44.455-04:00I of II
Many President Obama supporters are accus...I of II<br /><br />Many President Obama supporters are accusing the Republicans of being dishonest for what they say is attacking Obama on his eligibility, but not Senator Ted Cruz. They have it wrong. <br /><br />Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that for those born before the adoption of the Constitution, having satisfied the 35 years age and 14 years residency requirements, being a "citizen" of the United States was sufficient to be eligible to be President. It also provides that for those born after the adoption, only a "natural born citizen" of the United States is eligible to be President. We can see from this constitutional scheme that in the United States there are only “citizens” or “natural born citizens” and that all natural born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born citizens.<br /> <br />The Framers used the natural born citizen clause to assure that future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military would be born citizens of and in allegiance with only the United States from the moment of birth and throughout their lives. They figured that such a person would be one to least have sympathies for some foreign power or influence which could result in harm to the best interests of the United States and its people. <br /> <br />Since the Framers wrote citizen and natural born citizen into the Constitution, the next question is what do these terms mean? The Founders and Framers looked to natural law and the law of nations and the Enlightenment for principles which justified and motivated the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the writing of the Constitution. The Framers also knew that citizenship and allegiance can be either inherited from one’s parents (jus sanguinis) or acquired from being born in a country (jus soli). Hence, when the Framers wrote the Constitution, a citizen was any member of the United States made so by any legal means, which include the American Revolution, Acts of Congress, or treaty. The early naturalization Acts of Congress reflected this understanding. As time went on and because of the immediate need to make freed slaves citizens of the United States, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment were added to the list of laws that can make citizens. These laws, while capable of making one a citizen from the moment of birth or after birth, did not make one a natural born citizen. <br /><br />Continued . . .Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-16587697436070319292015-05-22T10:30:56.865-04:002015-05-22T10:30:56.865-04:00II of II
The Law of Nations, Sec. 212 Citizens an...II of II<br /><br />The Law of Nations, Sec. 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). Here we can see that Vattel defined the natives, or natural-born citizens as “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” <br /> <br />Our national law did, indeed, borrow from the law of nations, whose citizenship principles as expressed by Vattel were incorporated into American national common law and in the naturalization Acts of Congress, all of which became part of our national law and supreme law of the land. This is the common law of which the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) spoke when it explained: <br /> <br />The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.<br />Minor, at 167-68. <br /> <br />As we can clearly see, the common law to which Minor referred could not have been the English common law, which made no reference to the citizenship of the child’s parents. Rather, it was American national common law which had its source in the law of nations and which placed critical importance on whether a child’s parents were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth. <br /> <br />From all this we can see that the conflict of laws problem is resolved. In defining a natural born citizen, we are to apply national law and not state law. That national law defines a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. This is the only definition of the clause that has ever been recognized and confirmed by our U.S. Supreme Court. See Minor v. Happersett (1875); accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Upon ratification of the Constitution, this definition became part of the supreme law of the land and, never having been repealed, amended, or otherwise changed by constitutional amendment, including the Fourteenth Amendment, or the U.S. Supreme Court, is still the constitutionally controlling definition of the clause today. <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-31271840839603694312015-05-22T10:29:41.757-04:002015-05-22T10:29:41.757-04:00I of II
To find the meaning of an Article II “nat...I of II <br />To find the meaning of an Article II “natural born citizen,” one must understand that the solution lies in resolving a conflict of laws problem. That problem is whether we are to apply national law or state law to define the clause. Clearly, the answer is that we are to apply national law which finds its expression in the law of nations, and not state law which had its source in colonial English common law. The law of nations defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. The Framers saw that definition as being part of our national law. They therefore accepted that national definition as the meaning of a natural born citizen when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. Allow me to explain. <br />The clauses “Citizen of the United States” and “natural born Citizen” appear in the U.S. Constitution at Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. The original Constitution does not define those clauses. The Fourteenth Amendment does define a “citizen of the United States.” Acts of Congress and treaties also define a “citizen of the United States.” Hence, natural born citizen is a matter governed by the original Constitution. Citizen of the United States is a matter governed by both the original Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment, along with Acts of Congress and treaties. As can be seen, natural born citizen and citizen of the United States refer to membership in the United States, with the former being one of the requirements for being President. These are matters of national scope which require uniformity throughout the United States. In fact, the Framers in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 ordained that “[t]he Congress shall . . . establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . throughout the United States.” Hence, national law is to provide the uninform rules of decision in defining these national terms and not diverse local state law. The English common law was selectively adopted only by most of the states and became state law until abrogated by state legislatures. The national government did not adopt that law on the national law and therefore that law never became uniform national law. Not being uniform national law, the Framers did define a natural born citizen and a citizen of the United States under that local state law. Rather they looked to national law to do so. In identifying that national law, they looked to principles of equity, natural justice, and reason. They found those principles in the law of nations. <br />The Framers’ looked to Emer de Vattel as their best source on the meaning of the law of nations. As to citizenship, Vattel wrote: <br />The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.<br /><br />Continued . . . <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-10490562072212269132015-05-22T10:26:11.420-04:002015-05-22T10:26:11.420-04:00Let's do it again...
Mario,
Emer de Vattel a...Let's do it again...<br /><br />Mario,<br /><br />Emer de Vattel and John Jay would agree with your expositions on May 21, 2015 at 8:48 and 8:50 PM re Vattel and "fathers," "father," and the unity of allegiance and citizenship by marriage of the child's father and mother. Just as it takes two to tango, as the saying goes, and produce a child, it also takes two U.S. citizens, i.e. the singular unity of two U.S. citizenships, to produce a singular U.S. citizen identified as a "natural born Citizen" who is the ONLY U.S. citizen eligible to be POTUS.<br /><br />My emphasis here is in addition to your exposition.<br /><br />The "it" that should be done again is an amendment similar to the 14th Amendment permanent correction of the absurd holding of the 1857 Taney Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford which held that Scott, after a ten year effort, being a Negro, whether a resident of a free state or a resident of a slave state, was not a federal U.S. citizen so he could not sue to proclaim his new freedom acquired by running away from his owner who took Scott on business trip from a slave state to a free state and simply continuing to reside in a free state. <br /><br />The 1866 Civil Rights Act, a statute of Congress, helped to continue the effort of Republican President Abraham Lincoln with the 1865 13th Amendment to free the Negroes, but it took the 1868 14th Amendment, under the guidance of Representative John Bingham, the lead author of the amendment, and Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the first words of the first sentence of section 1, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens," to permanently protect the freedom of the Negroes set free by the 1865 13th Amendment that was passed with the guidance of Republican President Abraham Lincoln BEFORE the confederate states were allowed back into the Union as voting members.<br /><br />The "it" that needs to be done again is not a statute of Congress but an Article V amendment, initiated by Congress or by the "several states", to correct the absurdity of the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court holding that a child born on U.S. soil to alien parents was a "jus soli" citizen with the concomitant absurdity promoted over the decades that ONLY "jus soli" was the original intent of the 14th Amendment, with the addition of the absurd implication developed over the decades that ONLY "jus soli" is good 'nuf to be a "natural born Citizen" of the "We the People...Union" and thus eligible to be POTUS.<br /><br />As with the 1866 Civil Rights Act, a statute of Congress, all of the immigration and naturalization statutes defining citizenship are not good 'nuf to permanently correct the absurdity of the 1898 Court holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. <br /><br />Only an amendment to the constitution will be good 'nuf to protect the original genesis original intent of John Jay in underling the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" with the ONLY meaning of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.<br /><br />Emer de Vattel and John Jay would probably say dittos to an Article V amendment, too, to correct the 1898 Court.<br /><br /><br />Art<br />U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union<br />( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )ajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-5528239222950991582015-05-22T02:42:46.748-04:002015-05-22T02:42:46.748-04:00Jindal should not even be a 14th amendment citizen...Jindal should not even be a 14th amendment citizen at birth and I have 3 sc justices in wka who agree with me as well as the us senators who wrote the 14th. No country I have ever heard of would recognize inherited citizenship based on blood relatives unless the brs were also the parents. The minor court would have a lot more say on US Constitution than some anonymous french speaking obot clown...if the 3 Amigos actually did love the US then they would drop out of the race and scream that they and contemptible fraud currently squatting in the house of We the People are not eligible <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08928771256273232563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-3192617782246358112015-05-21T20:50:03.419-04:002015-05-21T20:50:03.419-04:00II of II
Regarding whether one or two citizen pa...II of II <br /><br />Regarding whether one or two citizen parents are needed, clearly it is two. When defining a natural born citizen, Vattel said In Section 212: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” That is his definition of natives, which he calls natural born citizens. In that definition he used "parens" (parents) followed in his explanation of that definition by "pe'res" and "pe're" (fathers and father). Vattel did not say born to a father or fathers. If Vattel meant that only a father citizen was sufficient, he would have written: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of fathers who are citizens.” After all, he used that exact word in the explanation of the definition. Since he used "parents" and later "fathers" in the same paragraph, there is no doubt that Vattel when he said "parents" was referring to both the father and mother and that they had to both be citizens at the time of the child's birth in the country of which they were citizens in order for their child to be a natural born citizen. <br /> <br />Vattel’s reference to fathers and father was only to show how the parents became citizens themselves, with their citizenship and allegiance following that of the husband (father of the child). He later focused on the father because parents obtained their citizenship through the father. The father was only the means by which parents obtained their citizenship. The end result was still that the child needed both a father and mother who were both citizens. And under jus sanguinis, it was only by being born to two citizen parents that the child inherited his or her common citizenship from both of them and not some other foreign citizenship from one of them. Put all together, a child born in the country to parents who were both its citizens inherited from his or her parents one and only one citizenship and allegiance and acquired only one citizenship and allegiance from the country in which born. Born under such circumstances, the child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance and not subject to any foreign power. Hence, unitary citizenship and allegiance required not only birth in the country, but also birth to two citizen parents. <br /> <br />So, Lupin is wrong on both translation of “parens” within the context of Section 212 and on his position that one citizen parent is sufficient to make one a natural born citizen. When Vattel wrote “parens” in Section 212, he meant parents and when he wrote parents, he meant two citizen parents, not one.<br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-41297812668472335952015-05-21T20:48:47.442-04:002015-05-21T20:48:47.442-04:00I of II
Obot commenter, Lupin, is spreading the ...I of II <br /><br />Obot commenter, Lupin, is spreading the idea that I have retreated from my position that a natural born citizen must be born to two citizen parents. This is false. <br /> <br />I am absolutely amazed that someone like Lupin, a French lawyer, with all his years of study, could make such a mixed up salad out Vattel. Lupin maintains that when Vattel wrote "parens" in Section 212, he meant relatives and not parents. Lupin is very wrong. He also maintains that Vattel only required that the father be a citizen, not both the father and mother. Again he is wrong. <br />The word “parens” can have an ambiguous meaning in French when standing alone, with its meaning possibly being parents, relatives, blood relatives, etc. But when the word is read in context, the meaning becomes clear. In Section 212, Emer de Vattel used “parens,” and within the context of that section there is no doubt that he meant parents. He clearly says born to “parens.” Children are born to their father and mother, not to some undefined relatives. One would have to have some wild imagination to think that Vattel meant to say born to uncles, aunts, cousins, etc. Even in Section 212 itself, Vattel in French wrote: "Parens Citoyens," followed by "Pe'res," "Pe'res," and "pe're Citoyen." So what followed "parens" was "pe'res" and pe're." "Parens" meant parents and "pe'res" and "pe're" meant fathers and father. So fathers and father related to parents and of course is one of the parents. If "parens" meant relatives, Vattel would not have focused on the father as he did. Vattel's structure also follows from the idea that parents got their citizenship from the husband (father of the children). Hence, Vattel explained how the parents of the child got their citizenship and that was from the father. Lupin's position is utter bunk given the context of Vattel's entire treatise in which he makes numerous references to the father and mother and never to any extended family or relatives. Every English translation since 1759-60 to the present has translated “parens” to parents. Finally, every U.S. Supreme Court that has cited and quoted Vattel's Section 212, starting with Chief Justice John Marshall In The Venus (1814), has accepted that "parens" meant "parents." So, Lupin's argument that within the context of Section 212, “parens” means relatives is absurd. <br /><br />Continued . . . <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-38944541110609544892015-05-21T10:54:59.576-04:002015-05-21T10:54:59.576-04:00II of II
The Framers would therefore not have ac...II of II <br /><br />The Framers would therefore not have accepted someone like Jindal, born a citizen of and in allegiance to the United States, only under the Fourteenth Amendment, but also born a citizen of and in allegiance to India, as being a natural born citizen. In the minds of the Framers, someone like Jindal would not have even been a citizen, unless his parents naturalized during his minority and he was dwelling in the United States at that time or he naturalized on his own upon becoming an adult. Not being a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen, the Framers would not have accepted someone like Jindal as being eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-47404086515290997512015-05-21T10:54:38.698-04:002015-05-21T10:54:38.698-04:00I of II
Leo,
You are correct that Governor Bobb...I of II <br /><br />Leo,<br /><br />You are correct that Governor Bobby Jindal, like de facto President Barack Obama, Senator Ted Cruz, and Senator Marco Rubio, is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President. He was born in the United States to parents who were both not U.S. citizens. His parents were both citizens of India and not citizens of the United States when he was born. He did not, through jus sanguinis, i.e., inheritance of citizenship and allegiance from one's parents, inherit U.S. citizenship from both of his parents. He was therefore under U.S. law born subject to a foreign power which in his case is India. He is in a worse position than a U.S. citizen who became so after his or her birth through naturalization, for that person had to swear off any allegiance to any foreign power prior to becoming a U.S. citizen. Not that it would make him a natural born citizen, Jindal has never even renounced his allegiance to that foreign power which is India.<br /><br />For the sake of national security and preservation of the constitutional republic and the ideals under which it was founded, there simply is no way that the Framers would have accepted as being eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military a person who was born after the adoption of the Constitution, and was not born in the United States (in which case under jus soli would become a citizen of and in allegiance with the foreign country in which born) or did not inherit at the time of birth U.S. citizenship from both parents (as explained would become a citizen of and in allegiance with the foreign country of both parents and after the Cable Act of 1922 one or both parents). It was only by being born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth or at least not aliens that such a person was under U.S. law born with sole allegiance to the United States and therefore not born subject to any foreign power. See Minor v. Happersett (1875) (“all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens … were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners”); the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (“All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States,” which allowed children born in the United States to former slaves who, while not citizens under Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), were not aliens). With parents either being both citizens or both aliens under then-existing law, the only child that the Framers saw to be a natural born citizen was one born in the United States to two citizen parents. The Framers did not accept even as a citizen any child born in the United States to alien parents, unless that child’s parents naturalized during his or her years of minority and the child was dwelling in the United States or the child-turned adult naturalized on his or her own upon becoming an adult. It was only through the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), that a person such as Jindal can even be a citizen of the United States “at birth.” The fact that today he is a citizen of the United States “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment, which neither repealed nor amended Article II’s natural born citizen clause, nor does it define a natural born citizen, does not bestow upon him the status of a natural born citizen. <br /><br />Continued . . . <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-81166858284853710382015-05-21T01:14:00.787-04:002015-05-21T01:14:00.787-04:00Jindal will be the third gop ineligible candidate ...Jindal will be the third gop ineligible candidate if he runs....do not say a damn thing about it either bobby you power hungry fraud Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08928771256273232563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-8406765193836293342015-05-17T13:55:48.666-04:002015-05-17T13:55:48.666-04:00"Challenge" dittos Doublee...
My purpos..."Challenge" dittos Doublee...<br /><br />My purpose in posting my comment follows your previous comments and question to and of Mario.<br /><br />Doublee, on May 15, 2015 at 1:21 PM and on May 15, 2015 at 4:40 PM you asked:<br /><br />"My question is this. <br /><br />"Is there anyone who is going to challenge the eligibility of the three persons mentioned above [Cruz, Rubio, Jindal]?<br /><br />"Has any court been presented with the following argument taken from Cohen v. Virginia 19 U.S. 64 (1821)?<br /><br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br /><br />>> 'It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. <br /><br />>> 'The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. <br /><br />>> 'We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. <br /><br />>> 'With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. <br /><br />>> 'We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. <br /><br />>> 'The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. <br /><br />>> 'Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. <br /><br />>> 'All we can do is to exercise our best judgment and conscientiously to perform our duty. <br /><br />>> 'In doing this on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. <br /><br />>> 'We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.'<br /><br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br /><br />"That certainly does not sound like Justice Thomas!<br /><br />[...snip...]<br /><br />"How much longer are the courts and we the people going to leave the question of who is natural born citizen unanswered?<br /><br />On May 15, 2015 at 4:40 PM you continued:<br /><br />[...snip...]<br /><br />Somehow, someone has to get the Supreme Court to accept an eligibility challenge - and the Court should, based on Cohen v. Virginia.<br /><br />Who is that someone and will the Court be convinced to rule on the definition of natural born citizen as recalled in Minor?<br /><br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br /><br />Since recent history has revealed that federal and state Courts have shirked their judicial fiduciary duty concerning POTUS eligibility, I do not trust the Courts, either the state Courts or the federal John “call it a tax” Roberts Court, so my purpose in my comment is to propose a double "challenge" with an immediate state and federal Court effort as you suggest. Since Article II is a Federal issue, we also need a Federal Article V amendment when "...on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,..." so that WE the People can guide the administrators of OUR Federation, the federal Supreme Court, the federal Legislature, the federal Executive, AND also the administrators of OUR state governments.<br /><br />In addition, hear! hear!, to your call for somebody!, anybody!, who?!, to present an immediate challenge against the unconstitutional assertions of Cruz, Rubio and Jindal and et al., We the People MUST also immediately begin a federal Article V effort to educate the current John “call it a tax” Roberts Supreme Court and the “go along to get along” administrators of OUR federal government concerning the original genesis original intent of "natural born Citizen" in Article II section 1 clause 5. <br /><br />The federal Article V is a common law and positive law/constitutional Article 9 and Article 10 "states rights" and Jeffersonian “nullification” stand by which We the People can assert OUR authority over the current administrators of OUR federal government, executive, legislative and judiciary, and also the administrators of OUR state governments.<br /><br />Art <br />U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union <br />( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )ajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-88759888088881869362015-05-15T16:40:34.564-04:002015-05-15T16:40:34.564-04:00I appreciate your response to my post.
As I said,...I appreciate your response to my post.<br /><br />As I said, I accept the definition of natural born citizen as presented by you and others.<br /><br />My concern is whether anyone is going to challenge the candidacies of Cruz, Rubio and Jindal.<br /><br />And based on the past record of innumerable challenges, the challenges will not result in a definitive answer.<br /><br />Somehow, someone has to get the Supreme Court to accept an eligibility challenge - and the Court should, based on Cohen v. Virginia.<br /><br />Who is that someone and will the Court be convinced to rule on the definition of natural born citizen as recalled in Minor?<br /><br />I hope I have not misunderstood. I was looking for a way to get a definitive answer to the question such that Cruz, Rubio and Jindal will be disqualified, as well as all future non natural born citizens.<br /><br />Then there's the dilemma of the sitting ineligible president.Doubleehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09894977171356099262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-34840603544725270772015-05-15T15:05:01.963-04:002015-05-15T15:05:01.963-04:00III of III
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), Wo...III of III <br /> <br />In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), Wong was born in the United States, but to alien parents. So, the Court could not find, like Minor had done for Virginia Minor, that Wong was a citizen of the United States by virtue of being a natural born citizen. Rather, it had to analyze whether Wong could be a citizen of the United States by satisfying the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, the Court had to address the Fourteenth Amendment question left open by Minor and the Court did answer that question. Wong Kim Ark confirmed Minor's definition of a natural born citizen. But then it went ahead and held, with the aid of colonial English common law, that Wong was a born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Hence, the Court held that Wong was a born citizen of the United States, not by virtue of being a natural born citizen of the United States, but rather by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, which, although it required birth in the country, did not require birth to U.S. citizen parents, which was required for children born out of the United States if they were to be born citizens of the United States. So, while Wong Kim Ark answered the Fourteenth Amendment question left open by Minor, it did not disturb its holding regarding the definition of a natural born citizen. Wong Kim Ark also confirmed that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents could be citizens of the United States, not because they could be natural born citizens and therefore citizens, but rather only because they could be citizens through a naturalization Act of Congress. Accord Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) (a person born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents can be a citizen of the United States only if Congress allows it through one of its naturalization acts and such person therefore becomes a citizen of the United States “at birth” through naturalization). <br /><br />This means that today a natural born citizen is still a child born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of their child's birth. The U.S. Supreme Court has never given any other definition of the clause.<br /><br />So we are full circle to the understanding that all natural born citizens are born citizens. But not all born citizens are natural born citizens. Stated in set theory language, the natural born citizens is a proper subset of the born citizens. <br /><br />Under the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of a natural born citizen as demonstrate above, de facto President Barack Obama, Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio, and Governor Bobby Jindal are all not natural born citizens. Obama (if born in the United States), Rubio, and Jindal are Fourteenth Amendment born citizens of the United States under Wong Kim Ark. Cruz is a born citizen of the United States under a naturalization Act of Congress and is therefore a citizen of the United States through naturalization which clearly disqualifies him from being a natural born citizen. None of them are born citizens by being natural born citizens. Rather, they are born citizens by satisfying either the Fourteenth Amendment (for those born in the United States to one or two qualifying alien parents) or a naturalization Act of Congress (for Cruz who was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father). <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-47037246942672005102015-05-15T15:03:34.529-04:002015-05-15T15:03:34.529-04:00II of III
The Supreme Court started by saying th...II of III <br /><br />The Supreme Court started by saying that the Constitution, which then already included the Fourteenth Amendment, did not define a natural born citizen, and that its meaning was to be found in the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. It explained the difference under that common law between being a citizen and being a natural born citizen. It said that at common law a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens was not only a citizen, but also a natural born citizen. It further added that under that same common law, all other people who were not born under such facts and circumstances were “aliens or foreigners,” who could be naturalized under Acts of Congress or treaties. The Court explained that there was no doubt that a natural born citizen at common law was a citizen of the United States, both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. The Court added that there were doubts whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was a citizen of the United States, both before and after the Amendment was passed. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court had stated in The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), which was decided by virtually the same Court as the Minor Court except for Chief Justice Chase who had since passed away, that a child born in the United States to alien parents was not a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. So if a person was a natural born citizen, there was no doubt that one was a citizen of the United States under any law. If one was born in the United States to alien parents and hence not a natural born citizen, the Supreme Court had said in 1873 that one was not a citizen of the United States, either at common law or under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also found that women were included in “all children” at common law and “all persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Since Virginia Minor, a women, was born in the United States to citizen parents, which made her a natural born citizen at common law, there was no doubt that she was a citizen of the United States both before and after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, the Court did not have to address the open question of whether a child born in the United States to alien parents, although not a natural born citizen and therefore not a citizen at common law, was a citizen of the United States under the new positive law known as the Fourteenth Amendment. <br /><br />After finding that women like Virginia Minor were citizen of the United States, the Minor Court then had to decide whether being such a citizen gave one a privilege or immunity under Article IV, Section 2 which included the right to vote in the states. Even though Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen at common law and therefore a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court ultimately held that, given the then-existing state of the law which the Court said it was duty bound to follow, being a citizen of the United States did not bring with it a constitutional right to vote to be enjoyed by both men and women and which a state could not abridge under its laws. So in the end, Virginia Minor won the citizenship battle, but lost the voting war. The Constitution was eventually amended on August 18, 1920 with the Nineteenth Amendment, which provides that neither the United States nor any state shall deny or abridge the right of citizens of the United States to vote on the account of sex.<br /> <br />Continued . . . <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-12127586320368607772015-05-15T15:02:29.936-04:002015-05-15T15:02:29.936-04:00I of III
The definition of a natural born citizen...I of III<br /><br />The definition of a natural born citizen has been confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) which held:<br /> <br />The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.<br /><br />Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68. <br /><br />Continued . . . <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com