tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post3469446046591049929..comments2024-03-19T00:44:18.309-05:00Comments on Althouse: Obama's useless response to the Colorado/Washington marijuana issue.Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger164125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-52909627475932292082012-12-18T10:10:53.122-06:002012-12-18T10:10:53.122-06:00I fully understand that the President can't ju...I fully understand that the President can't just schedule a press conference one afternoon where he looks at his watch, says <i>"It is 4:20, and it is time to legalize pot"</i> and it is all done and said with that.<br /><br />However, as it has been pointed out by others, it is his agency that has the legal power to re-schedule it. Yes, I understand that there are procedures to be followed and it is a big ship to steer...but ultimately the buck stops where?<br /><br />The DEA's failure to act on this matter tells me that Obama (like most of the Presidents before him) is at least content with, if not actually supportive of, the <i>"Marijuana is more dangerous than cocaine"</i> policy and for that I do hold him personally responsible.purplepenquinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985523216476971244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-68529321088855195672012-12-16T10:30:03.531-06:002012-12-16T10:30:03.531-06:00Okay, Purplepenguin... I am going to presume your ...Okay, Purplepenguin... I am going to presume your query is sincere. Here is an excerpt of the DEA's interpretation, as approved by the Department of Justice, of the Controlled Substances Act vis a vis marijuana:<br /><br /><i>When it comes to a drug that is currently listed in schedule I, if it is undisputed that such drug has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and it is further undisputed that the drug has at least some potential for abuse sufficient to warrant control <b>under the CSA, the drug must remain in schedule I.</b> In such circumstances, placement of the drug in schedules II through V would conflict with the CSA since such drug would not meet the criterion of "a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States</i><br /><br />Here is an <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2001-04-18/html/01-9306.htm" rel="nofollow">example of a petition to re-schedule</a> and the findings per the Department of Justice, and DEA, and the Dept of H&HS, as represented in the presentation collectively by the DEA. Its neither Leslyn nor I promoting our opinions in the petition and findings...it is the DEA and those it represents. <br /><br />The petition citation is long and boring, but if you read it through I think I will answer your questions. It should also assure you that Leslyn's two descriptions of the process are correct.<br /><br />If you dig deep enough you will discover that all 5 schedules were defined by Congress as to what substances were in which schedules....and clearly defines the criteria that must be met for enforcement agency(s) to add or delete or reschedule a substance. It is summarized in the DEA interpretation I quoted above.<br /><br />In short...the President has no ad hoc authority to change sufficiently detailed stipulations in a statute...in this case the Controlled substances Act and related amendments and acts. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Aridoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18345930150667529742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-85476412692345651192012-12-16T09:17:55.078-06:002012-12-16T09:17:55.078-06:00If you don't understand that, I suspect it'...<i>If you don't understand that, I suspect it's because...</i><br /><br />...some of the stuff you're saying doesn't add up with what other folks are saying and doing. Please don't read more into it than that. <br /><br />First off, I agree that the President can order his agencies to stand down when it comes to enforcement of particular laws. I understand the separation of powers, and know that while a President can have a law ignored, he can't actually change/repeal it. I also understand that there were some specific substances included when the Controlled Substance Act (which set up the process&policies of how the regulating agencies would classify substances) was first passed, but I ain't so sure there was a <i>These Shall Never Be Re-Scheduled</i> caveat attached to 'em. <br /><br />That is the big disagreement here...Who has jurisdiction for re-classifying marijuana..,no? You keep saying that only Congress can do it, while I beleive that either the Legislative or the Executive branches can. <br /><br />One of the main reasons I have a hard time shaking that beleif is 'cause there are petitions filed with the DEA to re-schedule it. Are the lawyers who filed those cases just wasting everyone's time? That comes across as snarky, but I'm sincere: Are all the folks involved in that process simply overlooking that the DEA has no authority to do so?<br /><br />And Ari...sorry about mis-reading that reading comment. My bad. And while I sincerely think you were sincere in trying to clear things up, the one link (didn't watch the video one, sry) didn't shed much light on the question "How much say does the President have in regards to federal marijuana laws?", and that's what I'm trying to figure out.purplepenquinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985523216476971244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28751098670367946092012-12-15T21:27:16.012-06:002012-12-15T21:27:16.012-06:00@purplepenquin (if you come back here)
But even a...@purplepenquin (if you come back here)<br /><br /><i>But even after reading all that, it still doesn't make sense to me that the POTUS is powerless in regards to this issue, and hence my request for clarification.</i><br /><br />1. Marijuana is classified by statute as an illegal "narcotic." Because the statute is clear and specific, there is nothing the Prez can do to change the classification. There is no delegated power to agencies of the executive branch (under the Prez) to do a damn thing about it. It remains illegal under federal law, no matter what state laws are passed.<br /><br />2. Because the statute is specific, and the Prez can't change it, it must be changed by Congress--because the Constitution says Congress makes the laws.<br /><br />3. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law trump state law. Federal law and the Constitution are the supreme law of the land. Therefore, the feds could enforce the criminal statute about MJ even in a state that says it's not criminal.<br /><br />4. The Constitution gives the Executive Branch (headed by the President) power to "execute," or carry out, or enforce, the laws legislated by Congress.<br /><br />5. While the Executive Branch can't change a law enacted by the Legislative Branch, it can decide how, or how much to execute it, or carry it out. So regarding non-criminal MJ laws in the states, the President has just said the Executive Branch has more important things to do than enforce the federal MJ laws in those states. That is an enforcement <i>policy</i> statement, and like any policy statement, it can change.<br /><br />6. Congress legislating laws, and the Executive carrying out those laws, is called Separation of Powers as established by the Constitution--the supreme law of the land. Why is the Constitution the supreme law of the land? Because it says it is, <i> and all the states have agreed to it.</i><br /><br />7. Therefore, under the Constitution, the Prez (Executive Branch) cannot change a law (Legislative Branch). The Executive Branch can only make policy decisions on how a law is carried out.<br /><br />If you don't understand that, I suspect it's because you don't like the answer.leslynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04976589297868178854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-91397030371626098702012-12-15T14:11:30.358-06:002012-12-15T14:11:30.358-06:00purplepenguin said ...
err, I mean read that it a...purplepenguin said ...<br /><br /><i>err, I mean read that it ain't the fault of the President 'cause it is simply agencies run amok and nobody can control them.</i><br /><br />1.) I had no intent to mock read versus heard...that is in your head. I simply reused your wording and changed it to "read" for my remark. I don't come here to Althouse to "win" anything, more often than not igt is gto learn something...with the rare instance where I know an answer not-with-standing. I am rather conservative, but I am capable of grasping concepts not originated by conservatives, and agreeing when appropriate...but I am no RINO...those would be the typical Michhigan Republicans until Snyder got elected governor...and my opinion is still forming about him...so far so good. <br /><br />2.) I am not a lawyer, at least not anymore than a latrine version...I just have experience with the subject matter of who can do what and why regarding a President and Executive Branch Agencies.<br /><br />Let me try again....<br /><br />A.) The President is NOT powerless, but the extent of his power is limited by the specific wording of statutes. If vague he can do any damn thing he wants, as we'll all soon learn as H&HS folks get their rules written...and the IRS adapts to the new concept of a discrete "penalty" as a uniform "tax." Now Justice Roberts is a lawyer and is living proof of how to waste a law degree wrecked upon the rocks of simple semantics....e.g., write new law from thin air strongly resembling flatulence. <br /><br />B.) Where you stumble on the power of the President is the process invariably used when old law is interpreted differently or new law is reviewed...and with very very few exceptions it is precisely as Leslyn wrote at 7:42 yesterday. Do you understand that when an Executive Branch agency does something, it is on behalf of the President, even if he didn't say so? <br /><br />C.)A good example of this process, even one where the outcome may suck in some views, is the expanded powers ought by the National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) regarding additional federal records available to the NCTC and how long they may retain them un-redacted for innocent individuals. <a href="http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/12/wall-street-journal-on-nctc-database-access/" rel="nofollow">See Here</a> for a synopsis and <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324478304578171623040640006.html" rel="nofollow">Here</a> for more detail. Attorney General Holder signed the new records rules in to effective law in March. This is the President through his cabinet having power, whether or not he was informed of it. It was possible becasue the orignal privacy law is somewhat vague.<br /><br />Did any of my expanded comment help? Aridoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18345930150667529742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-64713340466483231392012-12-15T13:18:25.073-06:002012-12-15T13:18:25.073-06:00You're right dawg!! I'm not actually "...You're right dawg!! I'm not actually "hearing" anything, but rather I'm "reading"!! Hahahahahahahaha...you sure got me! If this was a game I guess you'd be the winner, eh?<br /><br /><i>Re-read Leslyn's comment at 7:24 on 14 Dec 2012</i><br /><br />Yes, I did read that. I also read her 12/14/12 12:18 PM comments that said we shouldn't be pointing a finger at the President 'cause his hands are tied and the blame is with Congress. And I also read your comments at 12/15/12 8:37 AM which seem to say...err, I mean <b>read</b> that it ain't the fault of the President 'cause it is simply agencies run amok and nobody can control them. <br /><br />But even after reading all that, it still doesn't make sense to me that the POTUS is powerless in regards to this issue, and hence my request for clarification. <br /><br /><i>It is clear as a bell</i><br /><br />No, it ain't, so that is why I asked for clarification.<br /><br />Please keep in mind that even tho this is a law professor's blog we ain't all law students. I'm just a regular guy...what is "clear" to you might be slightly confusing to others. purplepenquinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985523216476971244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-84125767352705947212012-12-15T11:48:15.068-06:002012-12-15T11:48:15.068-06:00purplepenquin said...
So, if what I am hearing i...purplepenquin said... <br /><br /><i>So, if what I am hearing is correct ...</i><br /><br />No, you're not "hearing" what has been said, and you need to re-read most of this thread. And as for my comments, as well as Leslyn's, try some research. Your repeating something doesn't make it true...especially when it is not what anyone has said per se. Especially...Re-read Leslyn's comment at 7:24 on 14 Dec 2012. It is clear as a bell. Aridoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18345930150667529742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-60508473370677568822012-12-15T10:37:23.722-06:002012-12-15T10:37:23.722-06:00So, if what I am hearing is correct, it doesn'...So, if what I am hearing is correct, it doesn't matter at all what the President says about the War on Drugs 'cause there is nothing-at-all he can do to bring about any changes?<br /><br />When Obama says that the DEA won't go after pot smokers in the states that legalized it he is just talking outta his ass 'cause he has no power at-all to stop his agency from enforcing the law, eh?<br /><br />I dunno...that doesn't sound right to me. purplepenquinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985523216476971244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7701253132565682042012-12-15T08:50:47.772-06:002012-12-15T08:50:47.772-06:00One more thing...the Department of Homeland Securi...One more thing...the Department of Homeland Security was established under Bush, and is just possibly the worst construct in federal government ever implemented. Obama isn't to blame for establishing it, but under his watch DHS has expanded its functions geometrically...rampant redundancy by establishing internal functions that duplicate functions already done efficiently by several other agencies. <br /><br />Reason? ...easy, the agencies they are usurping functions from are mostly those DHS does NOT control. Hello? Think Dept of Defense and the various departments under it. Think "FEMA Corps" as one of the newest bullshit redundant functions under DHS...intended to replace disaster response responsibilities of DoD under the auspices of ESF-3. <br /><br />A damn foolish idea under Bush, and one made idiotic under Obama. Aridoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18345930150667529742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-77772570606829282052012-12-15T08:37:33.176-06:002012-12-15T08:37:33.176-06:00purplepenquin said...
It is too bad there ain...purplepenquin said... <br /><br /><i>It is too bad there ain't any law experts around to shed some light on the matter.</i><br /><br />Don't need to be a "law expert" to understand how federal bureaucracy works. What you think a law says and what is actually done in its name are frequently as different as night and day. Think Justice Roberts and the semantics of *penalty* versus *tax*.<br /><br />Leslyn is right about the normal process within the Executive Branch, especially if the issue is one clearly defined in a statute. I have personally witnessed it in action. It gets murky when a law is passed that is vague, as many are, and reliant upon agencies to rule-write-as-law. (Arbitrary bureaucrats like this better as guilt is presumed,not innocence, when a violation is cited....and punishment begins immediately upon citation.) <br /><br />Under vague statutory conditions, agencies can write and re-write/change the rules at will, and do so. Think the Pelosi-care legislation and the Clean Air Act, among others, particularly in the finance arena. As far as health care is concerned, what Pelosi and crew put together is a ludicrous hodge podge of vagaries. What candidate John Kerry proposed in 2004 was far better and simpler, using existing agency offices,...although I despise Kerry I have to give him credit for the issue he was correct on. How many even recall what his proposal was? <br /><br />It gets even worse when the statute does not specify who the enforcing agency is to be...then a half dozen agencies all rule-write-as-law together. <br /><br />As for the Attorney General and Department of Justice, as well as the Department of Homeland Security, you already have agencies that ignore clear statutes and/or re-write-rules-as-law, and no better an example exists than *Fast & Furious* gun walking where federal laws were intentionally broken in name of enforcing the same federal laws.<br /><br />If that makes sense to you, then you must be a progressive "Fed." <b>And it should be noted that this federal malfeasance began long before Obama, or even Bush.</b> "Equal protection" has been an inside joke since Eisenhower left office at a minimum. You cannot change this institutionalized idiocy by changing administrations...all the vested players stay right there in DC and continue to play the game. Aridoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18345930150667529742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-3343369714465741992012-12-15T00:43:00.927-06:002012-12-15T00:43:00.927-06:00This is a great example of something that should b...This is a great example of something that should be decided at the state level rather than the federal level. Those who value liberty should push for federalism. This should be obvious for conservatives but even some lefties should fear the danger of dictatorship that a too big, too powerful central government poses.Steve Kochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13077530042599697923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-54178617055072255572012-12-14T20:40:33.716-06:002012-12-14T20:40:33.716-06:00leslyn said...
A court decision would then tell u...leslyn said...<br /><br /><i>A court decision would then tell us something about "what the law is."</i><br /><br />It would only tell us that the law can't be enforced selectively by state. It would tell us nothing about whether it would be enforced everywhere, or nowhere, or when it might change from one to another. Ignorance is Blisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17351664545145783244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72736496734038736462012-12-14T19:24:40.417-06:002012-12-14T19:24:40.417-06:00(I'm heartbroken.)
You can't change a law...(I'm heartbroken.)<br /><br />You can't change a law on the books with an agency regulation or executive order. That's one of the essential things about being a law.<br /><br />The DEA reports, I believe, to DHS, which reports to the President. The President, if desiring certain selective enforcement (isn't that what we said? We have more important things to do?) would communicate that to the Attorney General at the DOJ, who would advise the Prez on policy and enforcement issues, but carry out such a policy if deemed Constitutional to do so.<br /><br />As the country's chief law enforcement officer, the AG would communicate the policy to the enforcement agencies--including DHS, and the DEA.<br /><br />leslynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04976589297868178854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-89126917964971198532012-12-14T18:37:44.821-06:002012-12-14T18:37:44.821-06:00leslyn, I see the 4:12 and raise you with the 2:52...leslyn, I see the 4:12 and raise you with the 2:52. It is too bad there ain't any law experts around to shed some light on the matter.<br /><br />That aside, do you at least agree that the DEA reports to the White House? If Obama was to instruct his agencies that enforcement was to be the absolute least priorty of resources, could they really tell him "Nope, ain't gonna do that!"?<br /><br />Please don't think I ain't holding Congress blameless for this mess...obviously they could pass a law that re-legalizes the herb, at least on a Federal level. But it is Obama's DEA that enforces the FedLaws, and thus it is Obama that can tell them to stand down. purplepenquinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985523216476971244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-16510033515847248092012-12-14T17:26:46.885-06:002012-12-14T17:26:46.885-06:00purplepenquin said...
And re-reading the thread I ...purplepenquin said...<br /><i>And re-reading the thread I don't see what details GM and I are disagreeing about. We both are saying that any President basically has the authority to re-classify a substance on The List.</i><br /><br />Reread what mccullough said at 4:12.<br /><br /><br />leslynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04976589297868178854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-68663801916732317762012-12-14T16:12:07.434-06:002012-12-14T16:12:07.434-06:00Congress put marijuana in the Class I schedule in ...Congress put marijuana in the Class I schedule in the CSA when they passed the law back in 1970.<br /><br />It is very questionable whether the DEA would have the statutory authority to reclassify it. And they would have no authority to declassify it. So even if they put it into Schedule V, these drugs can only be used for a medicinal purpose. <br /><br />This might help states like California that have medical marijuana laws, but Colorado and Washington have allowed them for a recreational purpose. mcculloughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03168402889404727565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59316467468579637962012-12-14T16:05:23.131-06:002012-12-14T16:05:23.131-06:00you were mistaken for your call to get on Boehner&...<i>you were mistaken for your call to get on Boehner's case rather than Obama's</i><br /><br />Please re-read my entire 1:35pm post rather than just the one statement you quoted. 'cause the message you received is not the one I sent.purplepenquinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985523216476971244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-91952251240932902582012-12-14T15:48:13.880-06:002012-12-14T15:48:13.880-06:00And re-reading the thread I don't see what det...And re-reading the thread I don't see what details GM and I are disagreeing about. We both are saying that any President basically has the authority to re-classify a substance on The List.<br /><br />And I also agree that it is especially galling that a person who poke smot himself...like Obama, but I'd also add Clinton and W and Reagan too...would cling to such an insane drug policy. At least Carter and Poppa Bush weren't total hypocrites about it.<br /><br />purplepenquinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985523216476971244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-27335103209286174242012-12-14T15:42:21.712-06:002012-12-14T15:42:21.712-06:00PP it appears then that garage was right and you w...PP it appears then that garage was right and you were mistaken for your call to get on Boehner's case rather than Obama's--unless of course you were calling for the repeal of the controlled substances act rather than just reclassifying pot. chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-23951950503459923272012-12-14T15:32:29.397-06:002012-12-14T15:32:29.397-06:00Could the law just cite language such as "con...<i>Could the law just cite language such as "controlled substances" without naming them, allowing definition by someone such as POTUS?</i><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act" rel="nofollow">Wiki</a> is our friend, my friend. :D<br /><br />Basically...while it did specifically mention some substances that were to be regulated, the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 primarily set-up the mechanism of how substances would be classified by the governing agency. Congress since then has added other substances as well, but most reclassifications have been done by a Presidential Agency.<br /><br />Another <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act" rel="nofollow">Wiki article</a> goes into detail about the various petitions that have been received to re-classify marijuana...but to sum it up every PresidentialAdmin since-and-including Nixon's has agreed with the policy that marijuana is more dangerous than cocaine.purplepenquinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985523216476971244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-55453557579244505272012-12-14T14:52:15.192-06:002012-12-14T14:52:15.192-06:00"In theory, the DEA, in consultation with the...<i>"In theory, the DEA, in consultation with the secretary of health and human services could move to reschedule marijuana – legally, the administration has that power," says Robert Mikos, a law professor and federalism expert at Vanderbilt University, in Nashville. "That said, making it an unscheduled substance would be a very dramatic change. If that were to happen, it would be politically easier to do in the last days of [Obama's] second term."<br /><br />Ending federal oversight of marijuana would in essence just throw it back to the states, and currently we have 30-some states that criminalize simple possession and a dozen or so that have decriminalized it, and now a couple that have completely legalized it," explains Mr. Mikos. "In that case, marijuana [policy] would just become a matter of state law." </i>garage mahalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06485491995866513686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-4015230539005662742012-12-14T14:46:55.614-06:002012-12-14T14:46:55.614-06:00Perhaps this outrage about classifying marijuana a...<i>Perhaps this outrage about classifying marijuana as more dangerous than cocaine is misdirected at Obama, and instead should be focused on Boehner.</i><br /><br />Then again, perhaps not. I find it intersting that PP is in opposition to GM on the details. Could the law just cite language such as "controlled substances" without naming them, allowing definition by someone such as POTUS?chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-76043268856372258482012-12-14T13:53:15.672-06:002012-12-14T13:53:15.672-06:00The biggest thing Barak Obama has to offer anyone ...The biggest thing Barak Obama has to offer anyone in a crisis is a few quotes from a middle school social studies text book.<br /><br />Then it's golf, waffles and "I've got a lot on my plate."<br /><br />I just can't believe anyone, anywhere thinks this man is worthy of the office.Tarzanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00749350183917452144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-8440039898654413012012-12-14T13:49:39.378-06:002012-12-14T13:49:39.378-06:00"This is a tough problem, because Congress ha...<i>"This is a tough problem, because Congress has not yet changed the law.... I head up the executive branch; we're supposed to be carrying out laws. And so what we're going to need to have is a conversation about, How do you reconcile a federal law that still says marijuana is a federal offense and state laws that say that it's legal?"<br />... but that's restating the question, not answering it.</i><br /><br />Barak Obama is such an epic dork I could scream, puke and poop all at once.<br /><br />I choose not to do that at this time.<br /><br />But I totally *could*.Tarzanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00749350183917452144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-10135107154572783642012-12-14T13:35:00.527-06:002012-12-14T13:35:00.527-06:00The schedule is federal law. If you want to change...<i>The schedule is federal law. If you want to change it, change the law.</i><br /><br />Setting up the act was a federal law, but the DEA & FDA (both of which report to the White House, no?) is who determines where each substance/plant lands within those classifications.<br /><br />At least, that is according to Wiki...which I know isn't always accurate. If you have more info available then please share. Perhaps this outrage about classifying marijuana as more dangerous than cocaine is misdirected at Obama, and instead should be focused on Boehner.purplepenquinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985523216476971244noreply@blogger.com