edge919 wrote: “The district court ignored the fact that the cited case, Wong Kim Ark, specifically [...]”
You lost me. What district court?
"For ease of analysis, the District Court divided the plaintiffs into six categories: (1) active military personnel; (2) former military personnel; (3) state representatives; (4) federal taxpayers; (5) relatives of President Obama; and (6) political candidates in the 2008 election. The District Court concluded that the plaintiffs in the first five categories lacked standing, because they failed to show an injury-in-fact or showed only a generalized grievance insufficient to establish standing."
I thought the circuit court's citation on Wong Kim Ark was continued from the District Court. If not, then we can easily change this to say that the Circuit Court ignored that the cited case, Wong Kim Ark, specifically noted that the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. Their footnote doesn't mean much since there's no evidence that Obama was affected by the 14th amendment.