Social Security Card
Dr. Kate has a problem with details. In her April 14 article, Who is Jean Paul Ludwig (John Doe)? Dr. Kate says that Obama’s grandmother accessed Hawaii probate records to get the social-security number of one Jean Paul Ludwig, and appropriated it for her grandson Barack Obama.
There are some remarkable coincidences here. First Ludwig was born in 1890, a date which appears among the data errors in the Obama entry in some public databases. (Note that there is no month and day in these records to match with Ludwig.) Then Ludwig died in Hawaii in 1981. And finally, his social-security number is from a series assigned to Connecticut, just like Obama’s. Could Obama really be using Ludwig’s SSN?
Besides the fact that it makes no sense for Obama to use a fake social-security number, there is one insurmountable objection. Mr Ludwig’s social-security number is 045-26-8722 and Obama’s is 042-xx-xxxx. It’s not the same number.
Various social security databases say the Obama number was issued around 1977 and Dr. Kate says that Ludwig’s SSN was issued in 1977 too — only that’s not right. It was issued in 1951. Here’s the entry for Ludwig from the Social Security Death Index:
SSDI entry for Jean Ludwig from Ancestry.com
Dr. Kate updated her article twice, but still failed to include the most important piece of information, Ludwig’s actual SSN. Among the 189 comments approved on this article, not one mentions the actual SSN either, nor the 1951 issue date. H/t to Nathanael.
Doc there’s also the problem that from all articles I’ve read Grandma Dunham didn’t start working at the probate court until after she retired in 1986. So that would mean 9 years passed from 1977 to 1986. Must be some weird time travel thing.
I generally assume that most birthers aren’t educated enough to sift through a legal opinion to understand what is real and what is junk law, so they’re perfectly willing to accept something silly that goes against everything they’ve known all their lives, just because someone throws together something that sounds like it could be a real argument. Likewise, throw some technical soundling language, and they’ll say, sure, it sounds like it could be a forgery. So they’ll have just enough plausible sounding B.S. to ignore all other info, even though It’s just a big pile of dung. However, any idiot can see that 042 and 045 are not the same. No amount of arm waving, or smoke and mirrors can change that. There is no way you can take Ludwig’s ssn and make it Obama’s. You just have to wonder what motivated the kind of hate that moves a person to post not just incorrect information, but an out right lie, that is easily identified.
Another low if Birfistan.
going to that link and reading the comments shows you how sick those people are, one thing is certain, they don’t like Marge.
Kate: “Blackstone was not used by the founding fathers, the founders did not want ot have anything to do with english common law.”
Brilliant.
Doc: Are you saying that somewhere out there is someone whose SSN differs from mine by only 1 digit?
FRAUD!!!!!
Dr k(h)ate is a demented harpy who speaks just like Marvel Comics’ The Hate-Monger or the Red Skull, except in real life.
South Carolina, for example in a 1759 Act made the whole of English Common Law in effect in South Carolina.
When South Carolina became independent, its 1776 constitution stated the laws enacted by the colony remained valid.
In fact, there’s probably two of them.
Thanks, but I’d be willing to be bet Dr. Kate is no way interested in facts, actual history or the truth. Evidently, she has crafted her own Earth.
In fact, I’d also be willing to bet that Dr. Kate would claim that that is a lie from some
Obot propaganda machine regardless of the citation.
In fact, there are between 0 and 18 (inclusive) ‘out there’.
Or even 18 of them.
You didn’t stipulate which digit.
Darn… should’ve hit reload before posting. Sef gets it first. 😉
Just gotta share this, in re Kate’s comment on Blackstone: Jack Rakove, a Stanford professor who is a celebrated historian of the American colonial era, noted in a recent book the “deep legalism” of society in colonial America “where William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England was selling as well as it was in England.” Rackove, REVOLUTIONARIES, at 68 (2010).
The person who was issued 043-26-8722 is dead, too! Do I smell a conspiracy?
Social Security Number: 043-26-8722
Date of this report: June 14, 2011
State of Issuance: Connecticut
Approx. Date of Issuance: 1951
Issuance Status: According to the Social Security Administration,
this SSN has been issued.
SSA Death Masterfile: THERESA BROKOWSKI 6/1998
Seriously, it looks like Orly was beating the Jean Ludwig drum a few months ago, but she apparently gave up on it. Dr. Kate is late to the dance.
As are 040, 041, 045, 046, 047, 049.
A coicidence of someone in Hawaii having a Connecticut SSN coupled with alleged access by Grandma? That is an unforgivable conclusion. I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say it is criminally bad, but it is an unforgivably bad conclusion!
And, pretty stupid, too!
Donald Lutz figured out who were the most commonly cited sources by the Founders.
1. 1.St. Paul
2. Montesquieu
3. Sir William Blackstone
4. John Locke [note: believed in volitional jus soli citizenship]
…
10. Samuel Pufendorf [note: writer on law of nations whose view of citizenship wasn’t same as Vattel]
11. Sir Edward Coke [note: Calvin’s Case = source of jus soli]
…
15. Hugo Grotius [another writer on law of nations]
…
29 Vattel
So, Vattel wasn’t the most popular source on citizenship, he wasn’t even the most popular source on the law of nations. If you look up Lutz’s original article and bore down into it, you find that Blackstone was quoted more than 16 times as often as Vattel!
Wow, Lutz’s material is great. Thanks for the heads up on that.
He may be referring to a speech by Sir Edmund Burke,
“I mean their education. In no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study. The profession itself is numerous and powerful; and in most provinces it takes the lead. The greater number of the deputies sent to the Congress were lawyers. But all who read, and most do read, endeavor to obtain some smattering in that science. I have been told by an eminent bookseller, that in no branch of his business, after tracts of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the law exported to the Plantations. The colonists have now fallen into the way of printing them for their own use. I hear that they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone’s Commentaries in America as in England.”
I forgot the link
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s2.html
If this were the case, then the Constitution would not have borrowed so many principles from English common law. (They also borrowed a lot from such major English statutes as Magna Carta.)
To take just a few items that were borrowed from English common law:
1. Immunity of members of Congress in Article I for statements made in the course of Congressional proceedings
2. Protection in the 4th Amendment from unreasonable search and seizure
3. Protection in the 5th Amendment from double jeopardy
4. Protection in the 6th Amendment of the right to trial by jury
I’ve had several birthers argue with me on other sites that “The Smoking Gun” was the fact that Obama and Ludwig had the same SS number, and “how do you explain that?”.
I never got an apology or anything from ’em after I directed them to the SS death index. They just slinked off to let time and hatred repair the chink in their “everything bad about Obama is true” & “Birthers are telling the truth” armor.
The 2nd Amendment and 8th Amendment can be traced to the English bill of rights, as well as legislative immunity you pointed out. Don’t forget the concept of a grand jury, indictment and presentment, habeas corpus, bills of attainder, due process, ex post facto and on and on. According to that obot, Justice Scalia:
“I don’t use British law for everything. I use British law for those elements of the Constitution that were taken from Britain. The phrase “the right to be confronted with witnesses against him” — what did confrontation consist of in England? It had a meaning to the American colonists, all of whom were intimately familiar with my friend Blackstone. And what they understood when they ratified this Constitution was that they were affirming the rights of Englishmen. So to know what the Constitution meant at the time, you have to know what English law was at the time. And that isn’t so for every provision of the Constitution. The one you mentioned — what does sovereignty consist of? — that is probably one on which I would consult English law, because it was understood when the Constitution was framed that the states remained, at that time in 1789, separate sovereigns. Well, what were the prerogatives of a sovereign, as understood by the framers of the Constitution? The same as was understood by their English forebears. So that’s why I would use English law — not at all because I think we are still very much aligned legally, socially, philosophically with England.”
What about Madison:
“I will refer you to a book which is in every man’s hand–Blackstone’s Commentaries.”
What about Story:
“The universal principle (and the practice has conformed to it) has been, that the common law is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ancestors brought hither with them upon their emigration all of it, which was applicable to their situation. The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law.”
What about Kent:
“The common law of England, so far as it was applicable to our circumstances, was brought over by our ancestors, upon their emigration to this country. The Revolution did not involve in it any abolition of the common law. It has been adopted or declared in force by the constitutions of some of the states, and by statute in others; and where not explicitly adopted, it is yet considered as the law of the land, subject to modifications and express legislative repeal. The common law of England, applicable to our situation and government, is the law of this country, except where altered or rejected by statute, or varied by local usages, under the sanction of judicial decisions.”
How about Cooley:
“When, therefore, they emerged from the colonial condition into that of independence, the laws which governed them consisted, first, of the common law of England, so far as they had tacitly adopted it as suited to their condition; second, of the statutes of England, or of Great Britain, amendatory of the common law, which they had in like manner adopted; and, third, of the colonial statutes. The first and second constituted the American common law, and by this in great part are rights adjudged and wrongs redressed in the American States to this day.”
One of the more famous treatises on the 4th Amendment traces its origin back to 602 AD.
Dr. Kate has a problem with details.
That must be a euphemism for outright lying. Like all birthers, she’s gone way past making simple mistakes
I’m quite familiar. Thanks.
My quote was from Dr. Kate.
You should explain it to her instead. Here’s the link where she replied to a person she calls an “Obutt” troll:
DRKATES EDIT AND RESPONSE: Blackstone was not used by the founding fathers, the founders did not want ot have anything to do with english common law. There is nothing today that makes Vattell moot. If you want to do that amend the Constitution via Article V and change the requirements for Article II. IN THE MEANTIME YOU ARE STUCK WITH THE CONSTITUTION THE WAY IT IS, ASSHAT.
I am leaving these comments in, although this asshat is in spam, to fully see the new talking points of the obutts–who are terrified now because they know we have won this issue, and all they can do is obfuscate. Notice Alinsky # 10 here–asking us to prove that Blackstone is wrong. DING–wrong.
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/who-is-jean-paul-ludwig-john-doe/
There could actually be 18 of them.
Beat me. That’ll teach me to read to whole thread before I respond to silly asides.
Ow! Twice in one thread.
“A History of American Law” by law professor Lawrence M. Friedman (Simon & Schuster, 1973) cites Blackstone 17 times. Vattel doesn’t even rate a passing mention.
Friedman devotes much of one chapter to explaining how English common law was adopted by the states. For example, subsequent to the Declaration of Independence in 1776 both Virginia and Delaware affirmed that the common law of England was to remain in effect. Dr. Kate apparently is ignorant of the fact that the first Continental Congress specifically declared that the colonies were “entitled to the common law of England.”
Resolved, N.C.D. 5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolves.asp
Kate: “Blackstone was not used by the founding fathers, the founders did not want ot have anything to do with english common law.”
Wrong.
Blackstone was recognized as authority of English Common Law by courts and the founding fathers. In fact the United States Supreme Court in Powell v. McCormack, 395 US 486(1969) acknowledged the influence of Blackstone when Chief Justice Warren observed: “Blackstone’s Commentaries was widely circulated in the Colonies” Id. at 538. Similarly the United States Supreme Court in Schick v. United States, 195 U.S. 65 (1904) noted “That Blackstone’s Commentaries were accepted as the most satisfactory exposition of the common law of England at the time of the Constitution and the framers were undoubtedly familiar with it. Id at 69.
The court in Bridges v. California, 314 US 252,(1941) acknowledged the influence of Blackstone on Anglo-American jurisprudence by noting ” [common law] was expounded and supported by the great Commentaries that so largely influenced the shaping of our law in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, those of Blackstone, Kent and Story.” Id at 286
In Calder v. Bull, 3 US 386 1798), the Supreme Court during John Adams’ administration, mentioned Blackstone in its opinion as “The celebrated and judicious Sir William Blackstone” Id at 391.
The court in Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 (1957) noted “that two of the greatest English jurists, Lord Chief Justice Hale and Sir William Blackstone—men who exerted considerable influence on the Founders” id at 26.
Chief Justice Marshall referred to Blackstone as the “elegant commentator upon the laws of England” in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 US 250, 321 (1819)
In Hart v. Massanari, 266 F. 3d 1155 , 1165 (9th Cir. 2001), the court observed:
“Blackstone, who wrote his Commentaries only two decades before the Constitutional Convention and was greatly respected and followed by the generation of the Framers.”
Similarly the Chief Justice Stone in CJ Hendry Co. v. Moore, 318 US 133 , 151-152 (1943) remarked: “It is noteworthy that Blackstone’s Commentaries, more read in America before the Revolution than any other law book.”
We have this observation from United States v. Green, 140 F. Supp. 117, 120 (SD NY 1956): “Blackstone, whose Commentaries probably did much to influence the thinking of American lawyers at and before the time of the framing of the Federal Constitution.”
Another observation “William Blackstone, who wrote his Commentaries roughly 75 years after the Declaration of Rights, provided the standard reference work for Colonial and early American lawyers. “[His] works constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” and he was “the Framers’ accepted authority on English law and the English Constitution.” Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F. 3d 567, 583 (9th Cir. 2003)
“Blackstone’s Commentaries had a wide circulation in America at the time of the Constitutional Convention. It is said that sixteen signers of the Declaration of Independence knew the book from cover to cover. A source book of legal science, a landmark in law and literature, it is safe to say that its contents were familiar to every American lawyer in public life in 1789 and 1791. Sunray Oil Corporation v. Allbritton, 187 F. 2d 475, 478 (5th Cir. 1951)
Professor Crosskey refers to the [Blackstone’s] Commentaries as “that great `best-seller’ of the eighteenth century” and points out that some of the members of the Constitutional Convention were on the subscription list of the original American edition in 1772. Politics and the Constitution, Vol. 1, p. 411, and Vol. 2, p. 1326, n. 3 (1953). Briehl v. Dulles, 248 F. 2d 561, fn 88 (DC Cir. 1957)
No, it wasn’t my intention to speculate why Dr. Kate was wrong, just that her argument failed at the detail level.
It’s only human to wonder how people like Dr. Kate can say the things she does, but I’ve largely given up trying to figure it out.
We also know that the Framers consulted Blackstone during the Constitutional Convention.
August 29, 1787
“Mr. DICKENSON mentioned to the House that on examining Blackstone’s Commentaries, he found that the terms, “ex post facto” related to criminal cases only”
James Madison, Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention
But Dr. Kate is taking this ridiculous non-story further than even Orly did. IIRC, Orly never drew any conclusions about Jean Paul Ludwig and Obama. She just said that it was a suspicious and similar “fact pattern.” As I recall, Mr. Ludwig worked for a Senator Reed from Pennsylvania in the 1920s and a commenter on Orly’s site asked whether this Sen. Reed perhaps had any connection to today’s Sen. Reid from Nevada. Unlikely.
But when they campaigned to get the Constitution passed, writing the Federalist Papers, they never mentioned Blackstone and explained how it came from Vattel…
Oh wait… never mind.
The best paper I have seen on Blackstone’s influence is here. One must also remember that Coke and other Englsih jurists were also cited as well so the influence of the common law is not limited to citations to Blackstone.
http://www.mmisi.org/pr/06_01/nolan.pdf
Thanks. I’ve added this to the Citizenship bookmarks.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/citizenship/
On another birther site someone posted a note claiming that Senator Reed was “Philip Dunham Reed” and that he likely was related to Obama’s father. That, of course, is a bald-faced lie. His name was David Aiken Reed,
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=R000114
[blockquote]Dr. Conspiracy: “H/t to Nathanael.”[/blockquote]
Thanks for the credit. However, IIRC (and more often than not these days I don’t), I stumbled across the link in someone’s comment somewhere here.
[blockquote]
Dr. Conspiracy: “Mr Ludwig’s social-security number is 045-26-8722 and Obama’s is 042-xx-xxxx. It’s not the same number.[/blockquote]
You’re a bit behind the times. I believe the current explanation is that Ludwig had TWO SSNs; the original -8722; and then in the late ’70s he applied for a second.
Some birthers have actually asked, “Why would an 87-year-old, who already had a SSN, apply for another one?” Not, of course, in the “Hmm, maybe our premises are wrong” sense, but with that conspiratorial “AHA! ANOTHER COVER-UP!” tone of voice.
–Nathanael
Of course, if Ludwig got a new Social Security Number in the 70s (which is possible, although unlikely) his old number would no longer be valid and he would be listed in the Social Security Death Index under the new number.
“Sen. Reed perhaps had any connection to today’s Sen. Reid”
birthers, especially Orly, can’t spell so give them a break!
Ballantine, thanks for that exceptionally helpful and comprehensive Blackstone article. (I love the historical artifact at p. 304: “Reported Federal and state cases through 1828 number in the thousands, making examination of each decision hardly practical.” The article was published in 1976, when Lexis and Westlaw were still new.)
I have a vivid memory of an early first year lecture on Blackstone by a star professor. He tartly described Blackstone’s intellect and scholarship as “second-rate.” He attributed the reputation and influence of the commentaries (much greater in the US than in England) to the fact that they were clear, well-organized, and above all, _portable_. I’d been hoping to find a refresher on the subject, and now I have it.
I suspect that even most lawyers, unless they happen to have taken a course in legal history, don’t appreciate how jury-rigged the English common law system used to be, and how arduous it was even to find “the law,” let alone understand and master it. I think that many lay people would find it unbelievable and conclude that their leg was being pulled.
I think you are right. I’ve looked at 18th century English abridgements and they were basically just summaries of cases that gave little rhyme or reason as to what the law was. So I think Blackstone was the first book to read like a textbook and to simply explain what the law was. It think the same thing would happen in the United States. Dane’s Abridgement had all the case law, but Kent’s Commentaries explained the law in understandable terms. Hence, everyone read Kent.
snopes.com has published a short but thorough debunking of the Ludwig SSN lie:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ssn.asp
Facts! Facts! Facts! Is that all you obots can talk about? Facts!? Don’t you realize NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR STUPID FACTS???????? Get a life!
–Nathanael
BTW, does anyone know when Obama’s grandmother started working at the courthouse? I’d read once it was in 1986, but haven’t been able to confirm that.
OK, so granny ‘bama can look up SSNs of dead people. Has anyone explained how an elderly volunteer worker can make it stick? She can bring it home for Jr. to copy down, but how did she get the SSA to play along?
–Nathanael
Just want to clarify that by “dead” here I mean “people who are still alive”.
I do not know that the volunteer job she had included access to probate records.
The birthers always contradict themselves, on the one hand, they say that the President is using a SSN issued to someone else. But on the other hand, they say that the SSN has never been issued to anyone.