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.
What a dumb excluse.
Its Saturday and I’m not working today so I will type the footnote for you.
Ummm, for content purposes, that's no different than copying and pasting the text.
Anyway, thanks for proving my point. I said that nothing you've shown has been based on an actual legal precedent and this new passage gives NOTHING to support what you quoted earlier. Let's look specifically at this part where it drops the name of a case, but cites no direct passages:
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.
And of course, this passage above is wrong because, in Luria, the Supreme Court cited Minor as having direct impact on the unique Constitutional requirements for holding office while they refused to cite Wong Kim Ark. This passage also ignores the Wong Kim Ark ONLY cites the term natural-born citizen when referencing the appearance of the term in the Constitution and then by how it was defined in the Minor decision. That term is not used again anywhere else in the Wong Kim Ark decision. The rest of the paragraph is simpy a denial of the plaintiff's claims with no direct citations to support the reasoning.
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.
Citations or MENTIONS?? One needs to do more than mentions a decision by name. An examination of each decision shows that none of these cases could be used to make Obama eligible for office. Inglis says citizenship follows the status of the father. U.S. v Rhodes cites Shanks v. Dupont in affirming that one can't be a dual citizen at birth and that persons born in the U.S. can be considered foreign nationals strictly on the basis of their parents' loyalty to anothe rcountry. The Georgia challenge cites Ankeny, which admitted by footnote that only Minor defines NBC and that Wong Kim Ark does not. Thanks for proving my point that Purpura, like all these other challenges you've brought up, lacks specific legal precedent.