Legal standing is more a doctrine than a specifically defined law somewhere. Standing means the law recognizes you have the legal right to come into court to litigate certain issues. The issue is whether this person has a right to take the action he has taken, given his professed reason for taking the action or refusing to take a particular action. (Weasley enough for you yet?)
Distill the matter into a broad principle: Does a member of the armed forces have the right to refuse a lawfully given order (and deployment is a lawfully given order) based on his personal belief the Commander-in-Chief is not lawfully occupying that office? Does the law give this soldier the right to force the CIC to produce proof of his citizenship before he is required to obey the deployment orders?
If you think this doctor is right, think for a moment of all those people who believed President Bush was illegally put in office by the Supreme Court. Should they have been able to refuse deployment orders and drag the administration into court everywhere and everyday?
The problem this soldier has is the Supreme Court has sworn this CIC in, giving him the authority to make lawful orders pursuant to his authority as CIC. You may be better off challenging the authority of the Supreme Court to swear in Obama in the first place. I am in sympathy with the good doctor and don’t doubt his sincerity and patriotism, but I don’t think he has the right to do what he’s trying to do here.
I agree, but it’s more than passingly strange that Obama has the will to put so many Americans through this - I cannot even imagine what the reason is given that citizenship is a requirement of office. One would think that if thousand if not millions of Americans want to know for sure, including soldiers that are being put in harms way by Obama that he or Congress would step up so that we can all move on.