No, actually you can’t read. Again, I didn’t ask for a link. Copy and paste the actual citations. I’m not hunting for whatever it is you think was cited. Your inability or refusal to do this makes your claim less and less credible.
Sorry again, the site where the Purpura v. Obama order is located does not permit copying without paying a membership fee and I’m not willing to spend the money. Besides, anyone can selectively edit a copy and paste. Links take readers directly to the source document where it can be read in full context, even if, in this case, its just a footnote citing Minor v. Happersett and US v. Wong Kim Ark.
Its Saturday and I’m not working today so I will type the footnote for you. You can check its accuracy by the simple act of clicking on the link!
Footnote 2, page 6, Initial Decision Purpura & Moran v. Obama:
“The Wong Kim Ark decision was preceded by Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167, 22 L.Ed. 627 (1874), where the Supreme Court stated that while the Constitution did not say in words “ who shall be natural-born citizens” there were “some authorities” who held that “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” were citizens. The Court concludes that it was not necessary to decide that issue in Minor. Wong Kim Ark more directly addresses the issue of who is “natural-born” although it is acknowledged that neither of these cases involved the use of the term in connection with a presidential candidate and the unique Constitutional requirements for holding that office. Nevertheless, the Wong Kim Ark ruling certainly goes very far in defining the term and its meaning in this country. And the decision does not suggest that the common law rule identified therein only applied at the state level and not on a national basis, as counsel here claims.”
There are additional citations to Inglis v Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 US (3 Pet) 99, 7L. Ed. 617 (1830) and United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott 26, 40, 41 (1860) and cites to several contemporary ballot challenge rulings such as the 2012 Georgia challenge Farrar, et. al. v. Obama and the 2008 election Indiana challenge, Ankeny v. Daniels.