Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18

YesacitizenoftheUnitedStates isdomicilintheDistrictofColumbia, theterritoriesandpossessionsoftheUnitedStates, orthefederalenclaveswithin theseveralStates

2011DanGoodman BeforetheFourteenthAmendment,acitizenofaState,wasunderArticleIV, Section2,Clause1oftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,acitizenof theUnitedStates: ...[I]tisinsistedthatthislawdeprivestheplaintiffinerror,acitizenofthe StateofMississippi,oneoftheprivilegesofacitizenintheStateofLouisiana,and therefore,isincontraventionofthefirstclauseofthesecondsectionofthefourth articleoftheconstitution,whichprovidesthatthecitizensofeachStateshallbe entitledtoalltheprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensintheseveralStates..... ...ThelawdoesnotdiscriminatebetweencitizensoftheStateandother persons;itdiscriminatesbetweencontractsonly.Suchdiscriminationhasno connectionwiththeclauseintheconstitutionnowinquestion.IfalawofLouisiana weretogivetothepartnersintersesecertainpeculiarrights,providedtheyshould residewithintheState,andcarryonthepartnershiptradethere,wethinkitcould notbemaintainedthatallcopartners,citizensoftheUnitedStates,residingand doingbusinesselsewhere,musthavethosepeculiarrightsbyforceofthe constitutionoftheUnitedStates,anymorethanitcouldbemaintainedthat,because alawofLouisianagivescertaindamagesonprotestedbillsofexchange,drawnor indorsedwithinthatState,thesamedamagesmustberecoverableonbillsdrawn elsewhereinfavorofcitizensoftheUnitedStates.Connerv.Elliot:59U.S.591,at 592,594(1855).
http://books.google.com/books?id=RkcFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA592#v=onepage&q&f=false

AftertheadoptionoftheFourteenthAmendment,intheSlaughterhouseCases,the 1

SupremeCourtheldthatacitizenofaStatewasseparateanddistinctfromacitizen oftheUnitedStates: OftheprivilegesandimmunitiesofthecitizenoftheUnitedStates,andof theprivilegesandimmunitiesofthecitizenoftheState,andwhattheyrespective are,wewillpresentlyconsider;butwewishtostateherethatitisonlytheformer whichareplacedbythisclause(Section1,Clause2oftheFourteenthAmendment) undertheprotectionoftheFederalConstitution,andthatthelatter,whateverthey maybe,arenotintendedtohaveanyadditionalprotectionbythisparagraphofthe amendment.SlaughterhouseCases:83U.S.(16Wall.)36,at74(1873).


http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q&f=false

Inaddition: IntheSlaughterhousecases,16Wall.36,thesubjectoftheprivilegesor immunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates,asdistinguishedfromthoseofa particularState,wastreatedbyMr.JusticeMillerindeliveringtheopinionofthe court.Hestated...thatitwasonlyprivilegesandimmunitiesofthecitizenof theUnitedStatesthatwereplacedbythe[Fourteenth]amendmentunderthe protectionoftheFederalConstitution,andthattheprivilegesandimmunitiesof acitizenofaState,whatevertheymightbe,werenotintendedtohaveany additionalprotectionbytheparagraphinquestion,buttheymustrestfortheir securityandprotectionwheretheyhaveheretoforerested.Maxwellv.Dow:176 U.S.581,at587(1900).
http://books.google.com/books?id=8toGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA587#v=onepage&q&f=false

And: ...Itis,then,totheFourteenthAmendmentthattheadvocatesofthe congressionalactmustresorttofindauthorityforitsenactment,andtothefirst sectionofthatamendment,whichisasfollows:Allpersonsbornornaturalizedin theUnitedStates,andsubjecttothejurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnited States,andoftheStatewhereintheyreside.NoStateshallmakeorenforceanylaw whichshallabridgetheprivilegesorimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates,nor shallanyStatedepriveanypersonoflife,liberty,orproperty,withoutdueprocess oflaw,nordenytoanypersonwithinitsjurisdictiontheequalprotectionofthe laws. Inthefirstclauseofthissection,declaringwhoarecitizensoftheUnitedStates, thereisnothingwhichtouchesthesubjectunderconsideration.Thesecondclause, declaringthatnoStateshallmakeorenforceanylawwhichwillabridgethe 2

privilegesorimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates,islimited,accordingto thedecisionofthiscourtinSlaughterHouseCases,tosuchprivilegesand immunitiesasbelongtocitizensoftheUnitedStates,asdistinguishedfrom thoseofcitizensoftheState.Nealv.StateofDelaware:103U.S.370,at406 (1880).


http://books.google.com/books?id=Y7wGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA406#v=onepage&q&f=false

SonowthereisacitizenofaStateandthereisacitizenoftheUnitedStates: WecometothecontentionthatthecitizenshipofEdwardswasnotaverredin thecomplaintorshownbytherecord,andhencejurisdictiondidnotappear. Inansweringthequestion,whethertheCircuitCourthadjurisdictionofthe controversy,wemustputourselvesintheplaceoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,and decidethequestionwithreferencetothetranscriptofrecordinthatcourt. HadthetranscriptshownnothingmoreastothestatusofEdwardsthanthe avermentofthecomplaintthathewasaresidentoftheStateofDelaware,assuch anavermentwouldnotnecessarilyhaveimportedthatEdwardswasacitizenof Delaware,anegativeanswerwouldhavebeenimpelledbypriordecisions.Mexican CentralRy.Co.v.Duthie,189U.S.76;Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,155U.S.393; Dennyv.Pironi,141U.S.121;Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.646.Thewholerecord, however,maybelookedto,forthepurposeofcuringadefectiveavermentof citizenship,wherejurisdictioninaFederalcourtisassertedtodependupon diversityofcitizenship,andiftherequisitecitizenship,isanywhereexpressly averredintherecord,orfactsarethereinstatedwhichinlegalintendment constitutesuchallegation,thatissufficient.Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,supra andcasescited. Asthisisanactionatlaw,weareboundtoassumethatthetestimonyofthe plaintiffcontainedinthecertificateoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,andrecitedto havebeengivenonthetrial,waspreservedinabillofexceptions,whichformed partofthetranscriptofrecordfiledintheCircuitCourtofAppeals.Beingapartof therecord,andpropertoberesortedtoinsettlingaquestionofthecharacterof thatnowunderconsideration,Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.648,wecometoascertain whatisestablishedbytheuncontradictedevidencereferredto. Inthefirstplace,itshowsthatEdwards,priortohisemploymentontheNewYork SunandtheNewHavenPalladium,waslegallydomiciledintheStateofDelaware. Next,itdemonstratesthathehadnointentiontoabandonsuchdomicil,forhe testifiedunderoathasfollows:OneofthereasonsIlefttheNewHavenPalladium was,itwastoofarawayfromhome.IlivedinDelaware,andIhadtogobackand forth.MyfamilyareoverinDelaware.Now,itiselementarythat,toeffectachange ofoneslegaldomicil,twothingsareindispensable:First,residenceinanew 3

domicil,and,second,theintentiontoremainthere.Thechangecannotbemade, exceptfactoetanimo.Botharealikenecessary.Eitherwithouttheotheris insufficient.Mereabsencefromafixedhome,howeverlongcontinued,cannotwork thechange.Mitchellv.UnitedStates,21Wall.350. AsDelawaremust,then,beheldtohavebeenthelegaldomicilofEdwardsatthe timehecommencedthisaction,haditappearedthathewasacitizenofthe UnitedStates,itwouldhaveresulted,byoperationoftheFourteenth Amendment,thatEdwardswasalsoacitizenoftheStateofDelaware.Anderson v.Watt,138U.S.694.Bethisasitmay,however,Delawarebeingthelegaldomicilof Edwards,itwasimpossibleforhimtohavebeenacitizenofanotherState,District, orTerritory,andhemustthenhavebeeneitheracitizenofDelawareoracitizen orsubjectofaforeignState.Ineitherofthesecontingencies,theCircuitCourt wouldhavehadjurisdictionoverthecontroversy.But,inthelightofthetestimony, wearesatisfiedthattheavermentinthecomplaint,thatEdwardswasaresidentof theStateofDelaware,wasintendedtomean,and,reasonablyconstrued,mustbe interpretedasaverring,thattheplaintiffwasacitizenoftheStateofDelaware. Jonesv.Andrews,10Wall.327,331;ExpressCompanyv.Kountze,8Wall.342.Sun Printing&PublishingAssociationv.Edwards:194U.S.377,at381thru383(1904).
http://books.google.com/books?id=tekGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA381#v=onepage&q&f=false

AcitizenofaState,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution,isa citizenofaparticularStateoftheUnion.Assuchheorsheowesallegiancetothe particularState: Onthetrialinthecourtbelowthevalidityofthediscriminatingprovisionsof thestatuteofVirginiabetweenherowncorporationsandcorporationsofother Stateswasassailed.Itwascontendedthatthestatuteinthisparticularwasin conflictwiththatclauseoftheConstitutionwhichdeclaresthatthecitizensofeach Stateshallbeentitledtoalltheprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensinthe severalStates,andtheclausewhichdeclaresthatCongressshallhavepowerto regulatecommercewithforeignnationsandamongtheseveralStates.Thesame groundsareurgedinthiscourtforthereversalofthejudgment. Theanswerwhichreadilyoccurstotheobjectionfoundeduponthefirstclause consistsinthefactthatcorporationsarenotcitizenswithinitsmeaning.Theterm citizensasthereusedappliesonlytonaturalpersons,membersofthebody politic,owingallegiancetotheState,nottoartificialpersonscreatedbythe legislaturehasprescribed.Itistruethatithasbeenheldthatwherecontractsor rightsofpropertyaretobeenforcedbyoragainstcorporations,thecourtsofthe UnitedStateswill,forthepurposeofmaintainingjurisdiction,considerthe corporationasrepresentingcitizensoftheStateunderthelawsofwhichitis 4

created,andtothisextentwilltreatacorporationasacitizenwithintheclauseof theConstitutionextendingthejudicialpoweroftheUnitedStatestocontroversies betweencitizensofdifferentStates.Paulv.StateofVirginia:75U.S.(Wall.8)168, at177thru178(1869).


http://books.google.com/books?id=bwGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA177#v=onepage&q&f=false

AcitizenoftheUnitedStates,undertheFourteenthAmendment,however,isa citizenoftheDistrictofColumbia,theterritoriesandpossessionsoftheUnited Statesgovernment,andthefederalenclaveswithintheseveralStatesoftheUnion. SuchacitizenowesallegiancetotheUnitedStates: Thissection[theopeningsentenceoftheFourteenthAmendment] contemplatestwosourcesofcitizenship,andtwosourcesonly:birthand naturalization.Thepersonsdeclaredtobecitizensareallpersonsbornor naturalizedintheUnitedStates,andsubjecttothejurisdictionthereof.Theevident meaningoftheselastwordsis,notmerelysubjectinsomerespectordegreetothe jurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,butcompletelysubjecttotheirpolitical jurisdiction,andowingthemdirectandimmediateallegiance.Andthewordsrelate tothetimeofbirthintheonecase,astheydotothetimeofnaturalizationinthe other.PersonsnotthussubjecttothejurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesatthetimeof birthcannotbecomesoafterwards,exceptbybeingnaturalized,eitherindividually, asbyproceedingsunderthenaturalizationacts,orcollectively,asbytheforceofa treatybywhichforeignterritoryisacquired.Elkv.Wilkins:112U.S.94,at101 thru102(1884).
http://books.google.com/books?id=rHEUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA101#v=onepage&q&f=false

TobecompletelysubjecttothepoliticaljurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesisto beinnorespectordegreesubjecttothepoliticaljurisdictionofanyother government.UnitedStatesv.WongKimArk:169U.S.649,at(706),725 (dissentingopinionofJusticeFuller,withwhomconcurredJusticeHarlan)(1898).


http://books.google.com/books?id=4sGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA725#v=onepage&q&f=false

EachStateoftheUnionhaspoliticaljurisdictionalso.Bothbeforeandafterthe adoptionoftheFourteenthAmendment: Thefirstpropositiononwhichcounselinsist,insupportofthedemurreris,that thiscourthasnojurisdictionofthecase,becauseitinvolvestheconsiderationof questionspurelypolitical;thatistosay,thatthemainquestiontobedecidedisthe conflictingclaimsofthetwoStatestotheexerciseofpoliticaljurisdictionand sovereigntyovertheterritoryandinhabitantsofthetwocountieswhicharethe subjectofdispute..... 5

Weconsider,therefore,theestablisheddoctrineofthiscourttobe,thatithas jurisdictionofquestionsofboundarybetweentwoStatesofthisUnion,andthatthis jurisdictionisnotdefeated,becauseindecidingthatquestionitbecomesnecessary toexamineintoandconstruecompactsoragreementsbetweenthoseStates,or becausethedecreewhichthecourtmayrender,affectstheterritoriallimitsofthe politicaljurisdictionandsovereigntyoftheStateswhicharepartiestothe proceeding.StateofVirginiav.StateofWestVirginia:78U.S.39,at53and55 (1871).


http://books.google.com/books?id=zMEGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA53#v=onepage&q&f=false

reaffirmedinUnitedStatesv.Texas(143U.S.621,at639thru6401892): InUnitedStatesv.Arredondo,6Pet.691,thecourt,referringtoFosterv.Neilson, 2Pet.253,said:Thiscourtdidnotdeemthesettlementofboundariesajudicialbut apoliticalquestionthatitwasnotitsdutytolead,buttofollowtheactionofthe otherdepartmentsofthegovernment.Thesameprincipleswererecognizedin CherokeeNationv.Georgia,5Pet.1andGarciav.Lee,12Pet.511. Theseauthoritiesdonotcontrolthepresentcase.Theyrelatetoquestionsof boundarybetweenindependentnations,andhavenoapplicationtoaquestionof thatcharacterarisingbetweentheGeneralGovernmentandoneoftheStates composingtheUnion,orbetweentwoStatesoftheUnion.BytheArticlesof Confederation,Congresswasmadethelastresortonappealinalldisputesand differencesthensubsistingorwhichthereaftermightarisebetweentwoormore Statesconcerningboundary,jurisdictionoranyothercausewhatever;theauthority soconferredtobeexercisedbyaspecialtribunaltobeorganizedinthemode prescribedinthoseArticles,anditsjudgmenttobefinalandconclusive.Art.9.At thetimeoftheadoptionoftheConstitutionthereexisted,asthiscourtsaidinRhode Islandv.Massachusetts,12Pet.657,723,724,controversiesbetweenelevenStates, inrespecttoboundaries,whichhadcontinuedfromthefirstsettlementofthe colonies.Thenecessityforthecreationofsometribunalforthesettlementofthese andlikecontroversiesthatmightarise,underthenewgovernmenttobeformed, must,therefore,havebeenperceivedbytheframersoftheConstitution,and, consequently,amongthecontroversiestowhichthejudicialpoweroftheUnited StateswasextendedbytheConstitution,wefindthosebetweentwoormoreStates. AndthatacontroversybetweentwoormoreStates,inrespecttoboundary,isone towhich,undertheConstitution,suchjudicialpowerextends,isnolongeranopen questioninthiscourt.ThecasesofRhodeIslandv.Massachusetts,12Pet.657;New Jerseyv.NewYork,5Pet.284,290;Missouriv.Iowa,7How.660;Floridav.Georgia, 17How.478;Alabamav.Georgia,23How.505;Virginiav.WestVirginia,11Wall.39, 55;Missouriv.Kentucky,11Wall.395;Indianav.Kentucky,136U.S.479;and Nebraskav.Iowa,ante,359,werealloriginalsuits,inthiscourt,forthejudicial determinationofdisputedboundarylinesbetweenStates.InNewJerseyv.New York,5Pet284,290,ChiefJusticeMarshallsaid:Ithasthenbeensettledbyour 6

predecessors,ongreatdeliberation,thatthiscourtmayexerciseitsoriginal jurisdictioninsuitsagainstaState,undertheauthorityconferredbythe ConstitutionandexistingactsofCongress.AndinVirginiav.WestVirginia,78U.S. 39,55,itwassaidbyMr.JusticeMillertobetheestablisheddoctrineofthiscourtthat ithasjurisdictionofquestionsofboundarybetweentwoStatesofthisUnion,andthat thisjurisdictionisnotdefeated,becauseindecidingthatquestionitbecomesnecessary toexamineintoandconstruecompactsoragreementsbetweenthoseStates,or becausethedecreewhichthecourtmayrender,affectstheterritoriallimitsofthe politicaljurisdictionandsovereigntyoftheStateswhicharepartiestothe proceeding.So,inWisconsinv.PelicanIns.Co.,127U.S.265,287,288;Bythe Constitution,therefore,thiscourthasoriginaljurisdictionofsuitsbroughtbyaState againstcitizensofanotherState,aswellasofcontroversiesbetweentwoStates.... AstocontroversiesbetweentwoormoreStates.Themostnumerousclassof whichthiscourthasentertainedjurisdictionisthatofcontroversiesbetweentwo Statesastotheboundariesoftheirterritory,suchasweredeterminedbeforethe RevolutionbytheKinginCouncil,andundertheArticlesofConfederation(while therewasnonationaljudiciary)bycommitteesorcommissionersappointedby Congress.
http://books.google.com/books?id=aAGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA639#v=onepage&q&f=false

AndinStateofMissouriv.StateofIllinois(180U.S.208,at230thru2311901): InVirginiav.WestVirginia,11Wall.39,abillwasfiledinthiscourttosettlethe boundariesbetweenthetwoStates.Therewasademurrertothebill.Indelivering theopinionofthecourtMr.JusticeMillersaid: Thefirstpropositiononwhichcounselinsist,insupportofthedemurreris, thatthiscourthasnojurisdictionofthecase,becauseitinvolvesthe considerationofquestionspurelypolitical;thatistosay,thatthemainquestion tobedecidedistheconflictingclaimsofthetwoStatestotheexerciseof politicaljurisdictionandsovereigntyovertheterritoryandinhabitantsofthe twocountrieswhicharethesubjectofdispute.Thispropositioncannotbe sustainedwithoutreversingthesettledcourseofdecisioninthiscourtand overturningtheprinciplesonwhichseveralwellconsideredcaseshavebeen decided. And,aftercitingRhodeIslandv.Massachusetts,12Pet.651;Missouriv.Iowa,7 How.660;Floridav.Georgia17How.478,andAlabamav.Georgia,23How.505,the conclusionofthecourtwasthusexpressed: Weconsider,therefore,theestablisheddoctrineofthiscourttobethatithas jurisdictionofquestionsofboundarybetweentwoStatesofthisUnion,andthat thisjurisdictionisnotdefeatedbecauseindecidingthatquestionitbecomes 7

necessarytoexamineintoandconstruecompactsandagreementsbetween thoseStates,orbecausethedecreewhichthecourtmayrenderaffectsthe territoriallimitsofthepoliticaljurisdictionandsovereigntyoftheStates whicharepartiestotheproceeding.


http://books.google.com/books?id=l9wGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA230#v=onepage&q&f=false

And,thereisthefollowing: Section1333(a)(3)providesthatadoptionofStatelawasthelawofthe UnitedStatesshallneverbeinterpretedasabasisforclaiminganyinterestinor jurisdictiononbehalfofanyStateforanypurposeovertheseabedandsubsoilofthe outerContinentalShelf,orthepropertyandnaturalresourcesthereoforthe revenuestherefrom.Petitionerarguesthatstatecourtjurisdictionoverthis personalinjurycasewouldcontravenethisprovision.Thisargumentagain confusesthepoliticaljurisdictionofaStatewithitsjudicialjurisdiction.Gulf OffshoreCompanyv.MobilOilCorporation:453U.S.473,at482(1981).


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18303575675978186938

Therefore,apersonborninaStateoftheUnionisnotsubjecttothepolitical jurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,butrather,tothepoliticaljurisdictionofa particularState. PoliticaljurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesextendstoonlytheDistrictofColumbia, itsterritoriesandpossessions,andfederalenclaveswiththeseveralStatesofthe Union: ...TheConstitutionprovidesthatCongressshallhavepowertoexercise exclusivelegislationinallcaseswhatsoeveroversuchdistrict,(notexceedingten milessquare,)asmay,bycessionofparticularStatesandtheacceptanceof Congress,becometheseatofthegovernmentoftheUnitedStates,andtoexercise likeauthorityoverallplacespurchasedbytheconsentoftheLegislatureoftheState inwhichthesameshallbe,fortheerectionofforts,magazines,arsenals,dockyards, andotherneedfulbuildings.Art.1,sec.8. Thenecessityofcompletejurisdictionovertheplacewhichshouldbeselectedas theseatofgovernmentwasobvioustotheframersoftheConstitution.Unlessit wereconferredthedeliberationsofCongressmightintimesofexcitementbe exposedtointerruptionswithoutadequatemeansofprotection;itsmembers,and theofficersofthegovernment,besubjectedtoinsultandintimidation,andthe publicarchivesbeindangerofdestruction.TheFederalist,insupportofthisclause intheConstitution,inadditiontothesereasons,urgedthat"adependenceofthe membersofthegeneralgovernmentontheStatecomprehendingtheseatofthe governmentforprotectionintheexerciseoftheirduty,mightbringonthenational 8

councilsanimputationofaweorinfluence,equallydishonorabletothegovernment anddissatisfactorytotheothermembersoftheconfederacy."No.43. Thenecessityofsupremelegislativeauthorityovertheseatofgovernmentwas forciblyimpresseduponthemembersoftheconstitutionalconventionby occurrenceswhichtookplacenearthecloseoftheRevolutionaryWar.Atthattime, whileCongresswasinsessioninPhiladelphia,itwassurroundedandinsultedbya bodyofmutineersoftheContinentalArmy.Ingivinganaccountofthisproceeding, Mr.Rawle,inhisTreatiseontheConstitution,saysoftheactionofCongress:It appliedtotheexecutiveauthorityofPennsylvaniafordefence;but,undertheill conceivedconstitutionoftheStateatthattime,theexecutivepowerwasvestedina council,consistingofthirteenmembers,andtheypossessedorexhibitedsolittle energy,andsuchapparentintimidation,thattheCongressindignantlyremovedto NewJersey,whoseinhabitantswelcomeditwithpromisesofdefendingit.It remainedforsometimeatPrincetonwithoutbeingagaininsulted,till,forthesake ofgreaterconvenience,itadjournedtoAnnapolis.Thegeneraldissatisfactionwith theproceedingsoftheexecutiveauthorityofPennsylvania,andthedegrading spectacleofafugitiveCongress,suggestedtheremedialprovisionsnowunder consideration.Rawle,ConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,113.OfthisproceedingMr. JusticeStoryremarks:"Ifsuchalessoncouldhavebeenlostuponthepeople,it wouldhavebeenashumiliatingtotheirintelligenceasitwouldhavebeenoffensive totheirhonor."2StoryConstitution,1219. Uponthesecondpartoftheclauseinquestion,givingpowertoexerciselike authority,thatis,ofexclusivelegislationoverallplacespurchasedbytheconsent oftheLegislatureoftheStateinwhichthesameshallbe,fortheerectionofforts, magazines,arsenals,dockyards,andotherneedfulbuildings,theFederalist observesthatthenecessityofthisauthorityisnotlessevident.Thepublicmoney expendedonsuchplaces,itadds,andthepublicpropertydepositedinthem, requirethattheyshouldbeexemptfromtheauthorityoftheparticularState.Nor woulditbeproperfortheplacesonwhichthesecurityoftheentireUnionmay dependtobeinanydegreedependentonaparticularmemberofit.Allobjections andscruplesareherealsoobviatedbyrequiringtheconcurrenceoftheStates concernedineverysuchestablishment.Thepower,saysMr.JusticeStory, repeatingthesubstanceofMr.Madison'slanguage,iswhollyunexceptionable,since itcanonlybeexercisedatthewilloftheState,andthereforeitisplacedbeyondall reasonablescruple. Thispowerofexclusivelegislationistobeexercised,asthusseen,overplaces purchased,byconsentoftheLegislaturesoftheStatesinwhichtheyaresituated,for thespecificpurposesenumerated.Itwouldseemtohavebeentheopinionofthe framersoftheConstitutionthat,withouttheconsentoftheStates,thenew governmentwouldnotbeabletoacquirelandswithinthem;andthereforeitwas providedthatwhenitmightrequiresuchlandsfortheerectionoffortsandother 9

buildingsforthedefenceofthecountry,orthedischargeofotherdutiesdevolving uponit,andtheconsentoftheStatesinwhichtheyweresituatedwasobtainedfor theiracquisition,suchconsentshouldcarrywithitpoliticaldominionandlegislative authorityoverthem.Purchasewithsuchconsentwastheonlymodethenthought offortheacquisitionbythegeneralgovernmentoftitletolandsintheStates.Since theadoptionoftheConstitutionthisviewhasnotgenerallyprevailed.Suchconsent hasnotalwaysbeenobtained,norsupposednecessary,forthepurchasebythe generalgovernmentoflandswithintheStates.Ifanydoubthaseverexistedastoits powerthustoacquirelandswithintheStates,ithasnothadsufficientstrengthto createanyeffectivedissentfromthegeneralopinion.TheconsentoftheStatesto thepurchaseoflandswithinthemforthespecialpurposesnamedis,however, essential,undertheConstitution,tothetransfertothegeneralgovernment,withthe title,ofpoliticaljurisdictionanddominion.Wherelandsareacquiredwithoutsuch consent,thepossessionoftheUnitedStates,unlesspoliticaljurisdictionbeceded totheminsomeotherway,issimplythatofanordinaryproprietor.Thepropertyin thatcase,unlessusedasameanstocarryoutthepurposesofthegovernment,is subjecttothelegislativeauthorityandcontroloftheStatesequallywiththe propertyofprivateindividuals.FortLeavenworthRailroadCompanyv.Lowe:114 U.S.525,at528thru531(1885).
http://books.google.com/books?id=jN8GAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA528#v=onepage&q&f=false

...ThisbringsustothequestionwhetherCongresshaspowertoexercise exclusivelegislationovertheseenclaveswithinthemeaningofArt.I,8.cl.17,of theConstitution,whichreadsinrelevantpart:TheCongressshallhavePower... ToexerciseexclusiveLegislationinallCaseswhatsoeverovertheDistrictof ColumbiaandtoexerciselikeAuthorityoverallPlacespurchasedbytheConsentof theLegislatureoftheStateinwhichtheSameshallbe,fortheErectionofForts, Magazines,Arsenals,dockYards,andotherneedfulBuildings. ThepowerofCongressoverfederalenclavesthatcomewithinthescopeofArt.I, 8,cl.17,isobviouslythesameasthepowerofCongressovertheDistrictof Columbia.Thecasesmakeclearthatthegrantofexclusivelegislativepowerto CongressoverenclavesthatmeettherequirementsofArt.I,8,cl.17,byitsown weight,barsstateregulationwithoutspecificcongressionalaction.Thequestion wassquarelypresentedinPacificCoastDairyv.DepartmentofAgriculture,318U.S. 285,whichinvolved,asdoesthepresentlitigation,California'sActandanattemptto fixthepricesatwhichmilkcouldbesoldatMoffettField.Weheldthatsales consummatedwithintheenclavecannotberegulatedbyCaliforniabecauseofthe constitutionalgrantofexclusivelegislationrespectinglandspurchasedbythe UnitedStateswiththeconsentoftheState(id.,at294),eventhoughtherewasno conflictingfederalRegulation. Thusthefirstquestionhereiswhetherthethreeenclavesinquestionwere 10

purchasedbytheConsentoftheLegislatureofCaliforniawithinthemeaningofArt. I,8,cl.17. ThepoweroftheFederalGovernmenttoacquirelandwithinaStatebypurchase orbycondemnationwithouttheconsentoftheStateiswellestablished.Kohlv. UnitedStates,91U.S.367,371.ButwithouttheState'sconsenttheUnitedStates doesnotobtainthebenefitsofArt.I,8,cl.17,itspossessionbeingsimplythatofan ordinaryproprietor.Jamesv.DravoContractingCo.,302U.S.134,141142.Inthat event,however,itwasheldinFt.LeavenworthR.Co.v.Lowe,114U.S.525,541,542, thataStatecouldcompletetheexclusivejurisdictionoftheFederalGovernment oversuchanenclavebyacessionoflegislativeauthorityandpoliticaljurisdiction. ThusiftheUnitedStatesacquireswiththeconsentofthestatelegislatureland withinthebordersofthatStatebypurchaseorcondemnationforanyofthe purposesmentionedinArt.I,8,cl.17,orifthelandisacquiredwithoutsuch consentandlatertheStategivesitsconsent,thejurisdictionoftheFederal Governmentbecomesexclusive.Paulv.UnitedStates:371U.S.245,at263thru 264(1963).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15445050255793327933

Thequestionpresentedfordeterminationinthiscaserelatestotheeffectof proceedingstakenundertheactofMarch3,1851,toascertainandsettleprivate landclaimsinCalifornia,upontheclaimsofpartiesholdingconcessionsoflandsin thatStateundertheSpanishortheMexicangovernment.Bythecessionof CaliforniatotheUnitedStates,therightsoftheinhabitantstotheirpropertywere notaffected.Theyremainedasbefore.Politicaljurisdictionandsovereigntyover theterritoryandpublicpropertyalonepassedtotheUnitedStates.UnitedStatesv. Percheman,7Pet.51,87.Morev.Steinbach:127U.S.70,at78(1888).


http://books.google.com/books?id=cWcUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q&f=false

ThepurposeoftheLandsAct(theOuterContinentalShelfLandsActof1953,67 Stat.462,43U.S.C.761et.seq)wastodefineabodyoflawapplicabletothe seabed,thesubsoil,andthefixedstructuressuchasthoseinquestionhereonthe outerContinentalShelf.ThatthislawwastobefederallawoftheUnitedStates, applyingstatelawonlyasfederallawandthenonlywhennotinconsistentwith applicablefederallaw,ismadeclearbythelanguageoftheAct.Section3makesit thepolicyoftheUnitedStatesthattheaffectedareasappertaintotheUnited Statesandaresubjecttoitsjurisdiction,control,andpowerofdisposition.Section 4makestheConstitutionandlawsandcivilandpoliticaljurisdictionoftheUnited StatesapplytothesameextentasiftheouterContinentalShelfwereanareaof exclusiveFederaljurisdictionlocatedwithinaState.Rodriguev.AetnaCasualty& 11

SuretyCompany:395U.S.352,at355thru357(1969).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14913666495146396286

Thus,acitizenoftheUnitedStates,undertheFourteenthAmendment,isacitizen oftheDistrictofColumbia,theterritoriesandpossessionsoftheUnitedStates,and federalenclaveswithintheseveralStatesoftheUnion. BeforetheFourteenthAmendment,acitizenofaState,underArticleIV,Section2, Clause1oftheConstitution,hadtobeadomiciliaryforpurposesofmarriageand divorce: Itissufficientforthiscasetosaythat,accordingtotheexpresswordsand clearmeaningofthisclause(ArticleIV,Section2,Clause1),noprivilegesare securedbyitexceptthosewhichbelongtocitizenship.Rights,attachedbythelaw tocontracts,byreasonoftheplacewheresuchcontractsaremadeorexecuted, whollyirrespectiveofthecitizenshipofthepartiestothosecontracts,cannotbe deemedprivilegesofacitizen,withinthemeaningoftheConstitution. Ofthatcharacteraretherightsnowinquestion.Theyareincidents,ingraftedby thelawoftheStateonthecontractofmarriage.And,inobediencetothatprinciple ofuniversaljurisprudence,whichrequiresacontracttobegovernmentbythelaw oftheplacewhereitismadeandtobeperformed,thelawofLouisianaundertakesto controltheseincidentsofacontractofmarriagemadewithintheStatebypersons domiciledthere,butleavessuchcontracts,madeelsewhere,tobegovernedbythe lawsoftheplaceswheretheymaybeenteredinto.Inthisthereisnodeparture fromanysoundprincipleandtherecanbenojustcauseofcomplaint.Connerv. Elliot:59U.S.591,at593(1855).
http://books.google.com/books?id=RkcFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA593#v=onepage&q&f=false

Fromtheviewwehavetakenofthereasonoftherulethattheforeignlawisto determinethevalidityofthemarriagesofourowncitizensabroad,itfollowsthat thereisnodifferenceinthismatterbetweenmarriageanddivorce.Bothare,infact, regulatedbythelawofthedomiciloftheparties,andnotbythelawoftheplacein whichtheymaybetemporarilysojourning.CommentariesontheLawofMarriage andDivorceandEvidenceinMatrimonialSuits;JoelPrentissBishop;(Boston:Little, BrownandCompany);1852,Section150,Page118.[Footnote1]


http://books.google.com/books?id=vrsDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA118#v=onepage&q&f=false

Theexclusiveright,therefore,ofeachStatetodeterminethematrimonialstatus ofitssubjects,investsitscourtswithexclusivejurisdictionovercausesofdivorce betweenthem.InthelanguageofJudgeStory,Thedoctrinenowfirmlyestablished inAmericauponthesubjectofdivorceis,thatthelawoftheplaceoftheactualbona 12

fidedomiciloftheparties,givesjurisdictiontothepropercourtstodecreeadivorce foranycauseallowedbythelocallaw,withoutanyreferencetothelawoftheplace oftheoriginalmarriage,ortotheplacewheretheoffence,forwhichthedivorceis allowed,wascommitted.Story,ConflictofLaws,230.Ibid.,Section720,Page586.


http://books.google.com/books?id=vrsDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA586#v=onepage&q&f=false

AftertheFourteenthAmendment,acitizenofaStateaswellasacitizenofthe UnitedStates,havetobeadomiciliaryinaparticularState,forpurposesofmarriage anddivorce: Underoursystemoflaw,judicialpowertograntadivorcejurisdiction, strictlyspeakingisfoundedondomicil.Bellv.Bell,181U.S.175;Andrewsv. Andrews,188U.S.14.TheframersoftheConstitutionwerefamiliarwiththis jurisdictionalprerequisite,and,since1789,neitherthisCourtnoranyothercourtin theEnglishspeakingworldhasquestionedit.Domicilimpliesanexusbetween personandplaceofsuchpermanenceastocontrolthecreationoflegalrelations andresponsibilitiesoftheutmostsignificance.Williamsv.StateofNorthCarolina: 325U.S.226,at229(1945).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11901843596649770914

reaffirmedSosnav.StateofIowa:419U.S.393,at407(1975):
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4796843726517835120

Withrespecttoanactionforalienationofaffectionsthereisadifference betweenthetwoCommonwealths.Massachusettshasretainedinmodifiedformthe husbandscommonlawrighttoholdliableadefendantwhohasinducedhiswifeto deprivehimofherconsortium.ButPennsylvaniahasenactedthatinthatstateall actionsforalienationofaffectionsareabolishedandthatnoactwithinPennsylvania shallgiverisetoanactionforalienationofaffections.Thequestioniswhether MassachusettswouldextendtheassertedunderlyingpolicyofthePennsylvania statutetobarasuitbroughtinthecourtsofMassachusettsbyaPennsylvania husbandagainstaMassachusettsparamouronaccountofconductwithin Massachusetts. Intheliteralsenseofthephrasethisisnotaquestionofconflictoflaws.For thoughPennsylvaniahasalawgoverningsuitsinhercourtsandconductwithinher borders,shehasnolawpurportingtoregulateherdomiciliariesrighttobring actionsinotherstatesbasedonconductoutsidePennsylvania.Yet,becauseofthe somewhatdivergentpoliciesofthedifferentstateswhoseinterestsareinvolved,the problemisonewhichwouldproperlybecalledoneofprivateinternationallaw. 13

Cheshire,PrivateInternationalLaw(3rded.)pp.5,6.Gordonv.Paker:83F.Supp. 40,at41(1949).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10043428746144303769

AcitizenofaStatecanbeadomiciliary(domiciled)inaparticularState.However, acitizenoftheUnitedStatescannotbe: AstowhoarecitizensoftheState.TheFourteenthAmendmenttothe ConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesprovidesthat AllpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStatesandsubjecttothe jurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandtheStatewherein theyreside. ThereforewhenapersonwhoisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesbybirthor naturalization,comestothisStateandresides(emphasisnotmine)hereheisa citizenofthisState.... WhereacitizenofanotherStatecomestothisStateandresidesinsometownfor atemporarypurpose,thoughsuchstaybeprotracted,hedoesnottherebybecomea citizenofthisState.Easterlyv.Goodwin,35Conn.,286. Withsuchaperson,hisresidenceheremustbeinthesenseofmakingitahome whichhehasnopresentintentionofabandoning.Ithinkthatitmustbea domiciliaryresidence.TheResidenceofaMaleCitizen,OpinionsoftheAttorney General;StateofConnecticut;Hartford,February1,1909;ReportoftheTax CommissionerforBiennialPeriod1909and1910,pages52thru53.[Footnote2]
http://books.google.com/books?id=Eb9JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false

Resides,asusedinSection1,Clause1oftheFourteenthAmendment,hasbeen heldintheSlaughterhouseCases,bytheSupremeCourttomeansbonafide residence: Oneoftheseprivilegesisconferredbytheveryarticle(Fourteenth Amendment)underconsideration.ItisthatacitizenoftheUnitedStatescan,ofhis ownvolition,becomeacitizenofanyStateoftheUnionbyabonafideresidence therein,withthesamerightsasothercitizensofthatState.SlaughterhouseCases: 83U.S.(16Wall.)36,at80(1873).[Footnote3]


http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA80#v=onepage&q&f=false

14

SinceacitizenoftheUnitedStatescannotbedomiciledinanyStateoftheUnion, thenacourtinanyStateoftheUnioncannotgrantadissolutiontoanycouplewho arecitizensoftheUnitedStates.[Footnote4] Marriageisbasedondomiciloftheparties: Fromtheviewwehavetakenofthereasonoftherulethattheforeignlawisto determinethevalidityofthemarriagesofourowncitizensabroad,itfollowsthat thereisnodifferenceinthismatterbetweenmarriageanddivorce.Bothare,infact, regulatedbythelawofthedomiciloftheparties,andnotbythelawoftheplacein whichtheymaybetemporarilysojourning.CommentariesontheLawofMarriage andDivorceandEvidenceinMatrimonialSuits;JoelPrentissBishop;(Boston:Little, BrownandCompany);1852,Section150,Page118.
http://books.google.com/books?id=vrsDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA118#v=onepage&q&f=false

TheseveralStateshaveexclusiveauthoritytolegislateonmarriage: InPennoyerv.Neff,95U.S.714,734735(1878),theCourtsaid:TheState... hasabsoluterighttoprescribetheconditionsuponwhichthemarriagerelation betweenitsowncitizensshallbecreated,andthecausesforwhichitmaybe dissolved,andthesameviewwasreaffirmedinSimmsv.Simms,175U.S.162,67 (1899).Sosnav.StateofIowa:419U.S.393,at404(1975).


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4796843726517835120

However,theUnitedStatescanregulatemarriagesintheDistrictofColumbia andtheterritories(andpossessions)oftheUnitedStates,orwhereitpossessesthe powerofexclusivejurisdiction(federalenclaves).Normanv.Norman:54Pac.Rep. 143,143thru144(1898).


http://books.google.com/books?id=QwLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA143#v=onepage&q&f=false

Sincemarriageisbasedondomiciloftheparties,andsincetheUnitedStatescan regulatemarriagesintheDistrictofColumbia,itsterritoriesandpossessions,orin thefederalenclaveswithintheseveralStatesoftheUnion,ONLY,andsinceacitizen oftheUnitedStatescannotbeadomiciliary(domiciled)inaStateoftheUnion,then acitizenoftheUnitedStatesisdomicilineithertheDistrictofColumbia,the territoriesandpossessionsoftheUnitedStates,orinthefederalenclaveswithinthe severalStatesoftheUnion. 15

________________________ Footnotes: 1.Andthestatusofpersonsasmarriedorsingle,istobedeterminedbythelawof theirdomicil.Ibid.,Section150,Page118.


http://books.google.com/books?id=vrsDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA118#v=onepage&q&f=false

2.Residenceanddomiciliaryresidencearenotthesame: ThiscasepresentsanotherphaseoftheIndianaGrossIncomeTaxActof1933, whichhasbeenbeforethisCourtinaseriesofcasesbeginningwithAdamsMfg.Co. v.Storen,304U.S.307.TheActimposesataxuponthereceiptoftheentiregross incomeofresidentsanddomiciliariesofIndiana.Freemanv.Hewit:329U.S.249, at250(1946).


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2416015038270473786

...Domicileisnotnecessarilysynonymouswithresidence,Perriv. Kisselbach,34N.J.84,87,167A.2d377,379(1961),andonecanresideinoneplace butbedomiciledinanother,DistrictofColumbiav.Murphy,314U.S.441(1941);In reEstateofJones,192Iowa78,80,182N.W.227,228(1921).MississippiChoctaw Indiansv.Holyfield:490U.S.30,at48(1989).


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2358461186912284415

Residenceinfact,coupledwiththepurposetomaketheplaceofresidence oneshome,aretheessentialelementsofdomicile.Mitchellv.UnitedStates,21Wall. 350;Pannillv.RoanokeTimesCo.,252F.910;Beekmanv.Beekman,53Fla.858,43 So.923;Babcockv.Slater,212Mass.434,99N.E.173;MatterofNewcomb,192N.Y. 238,84N.E.950;Beale,ConflictofLaws,15.2.StateofTexasv.StateofFlorida: 306U.S.398,424(1939).


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9265522746177498247

3.Bonafideresidencedoesnotmeandomicile: ...Theverymeaningofdomicilisthetechnicallypreeminentheadquarters thateverypersoniscompelledtohaveinorderthatcertainrightsanddutiesthat havebeenattachedtoitbythelawmaybedetermined.Bergner&EngelBrewingCo. v.Dreyfus,172Massachusetts,154,157.Initsnatureitisone,andifanycasetwo 16

arerecognizedfordifferentpurposesitisadoubtfulanomaly.Dicey,Conflictof Laws,2ded.98.Williamsonv.Osenton:232U.S.619,at625(1914).
http://books.google.com/books?id=2u4GAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA625#v=onepage&q&f=false

Apersonmaymaintainmorethanoneresidenceandthefactthatoneis maintainedforpoliticalpurposesdoesnotitselfpreventtheresidencefrombeing actualandbonafide.Intenttomaintainaresidenceisanimportantfactor,butintent alonedoesnotestablishabonafideresidence.Theremustbeactual,physicaluseor occupationofquartersforlivingpurposesbeforeresidenceisestablished.Williamson v.VillageofBaskin:339So.2d474(1976).


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13547316696383020452

Ourstatute65.02,FloridaStatutes1941,F.S.A.reads,Inordertoobtaina divorcethecomplainantmusthaveresided(emphasisnotmine)ninetydaysinthe StateofFloridabeforethefilingofthebillofcomplaint.Itisobviousthattheword resided(emphasisnotmine)couldnotproperlybeconstruedtoencompass citizenshipinalegalsense[domicile]becauseonemaycometothisState,establish abonafideresidenceofninetydays,thereafterinstituteadivorceactionandhave itheardandconclusivelyadjudicatedonitsmeritsbeforehecouldunderthelaw becomeacitizenandenjoyalltheprivilegesofcitizenship.Ontheotherhand,a personmightresideinFloridamanyyearsandneverbecomeacitizenofthisState orrenouncehiscitizenshipinaforeignjurisdiction.Indeed,failuretorenouncepre existingcitizenshipisnothingmorethanacircumstancetobeconsideredin connectionwiththequestionofthebonafides(emphasisnotmine)oftheplaintiffs residencewhichistherealtestunderourstatutorylaw.Itisnecessary,asprovided in98.01,FloridaStates1941,F.S.A.,thataperson...shallhaveresided(emphasis notmine)ANDhadhishabitation,domicile,home,andplaceofpermanentabode inFloridaforoneyear,andinthecountyforsixmonths,...inordertoqualify asavoterandforfullfledgedcitizenship.Citizenshipisnotastatutory jurisdictionalprerequisitefordivorceandneitherofthewordscitizenand citizenshipcanbereadintoourstatute.Pawleyv.Pawley:46So.2d464,at471 (1950).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15312812472711174511

Thedurationalresidencyrequirementunderattackinthiscaseisapartof Iowascomprehensivestatutoryregulationofdomesticrelations,anareathathas longbeenregardedasavirtuallyexclusiveprovinceoftheStates.Casesdecidedby thisCourtoveraperiodofmorethanacenturybearwitnesstothishistoricalfact. InBarberv.Barber,21How.582,584(1859),theCourtsaid:Wedisclaim altogetheranyjurisdictioninthecourtsoftheUnitedStatesuponthesubjectof divorce....InPennoyerv.Neff,95U.S.714,734735(1878),theCourtsaid:The State...hasabsoluterighttoprescribetheconditionsuponwhichthemarriage 17

relationbetweenitsowncitizensshallbecreated,andthecausesforwhichitmay bedissolved,andthesameviewwasreaffirmedinSimmsv.Simms,175U.S.162, 167(1899).... Theimpositionofadurationalresidencyrequirementfordivorceisscarcely uniquetoIowa,since48Statesimposesucharequirementasaconditionfor maintaininganactionofdivorce.Asmightbeexpected,theperiodsvaryamong Statesandrangefromsixweekstotwoyears.TheoneyearperiodselectedbyIowa isthemostcommonlengthoftimeprescribed. AppellantcontendsthattheIowarequirementofoneyearsresidenceis unconstitutionalfortwoseparatereasons:...and,second,becauseitdeniesa litiganttheopportunitytomakeanindividualizedshowingofbonafideresidence andthereforedeniessuchresidentsaccesstotheonlymethodoflegallydissolving theirmarriage.Vlandisv.Kline,412U.S.441(1973);Boddiev.Connecticut,401U.S. 371(1971)..... Wethereforeholdthatthestateinterestinrequiringthatthosewhoseeka divorcefromitscourtsbegenuinelyattachedtotheState.... Norareweoftheviewthatthefailuretoprovideanindividualized determinationofresidencyviolatestheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenth Amendment.Vlandisv.Kline,412U.S.441(1973),relieduponbyappellant,held thatConnecticutmightnotarbitrarilyinvokeapermanentandirrebuttable presumptionofnonresidenceagainststudentswhosoughttoobtaininstatetuition rateswhenthatpresumptionwasnotnecessarilyoruniversallytrueinfact.Butin VlandistheCourtwarnedthatitsdecisionshouldnotbeconstruedtodenyaState therighttoimposeonastudent,asoneelementindemonstratingbonafide residence,areasonabledurationalresidencyrequirement.Id.,at452.SeeStamsv. Malkerson,326F.Supp.234(Minn.1970),affd,401U.S.985(1971).An individualizeddeterminationofphysicalpresenceplustheintenttoremain,which appellantapparentlyseeks,wouldnotentitlehertoadivorceevenifshecouldhave madesuchashowing.ForIowarequiresnotmerelydomicileinthatsense,but (actual)residenceintheStateforayearinorderforitscourtstoexercisetheir divorcejurisdiction.Sosnav.StateofIowa:419U.S.393,at404,405,409thru410 (1975).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4796843726517835120

4.Therefore,anyandallsuchdissolutionsgrantedbythecourtsoftheseveral StatesareVOID,sincetheparties,citizensoftheUnitedStates,cannotunderlawbe domiciliaries(domiciled)inanyoftheseveralStatesoftheUnion. 18

Вам также может понравиться