From the article:
Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini ruled March 11 that common law precedent and statutory history maintain that an eligible candidate includes any person born to an American citizen, regardless of where.Elliott had acknowledged that Cruz's mother was born in the United States and has been a U.S. citizen her whole life.
Elliott had acknowledged that Cruz’s mother was born in the United States and has been a U.S. citizen her whole life.
____________________________________
except for that period she was a Canadian citizen including the day her son Rafael Edward Cruz was born...
Boom!
In other words, this wasn’t decided on the basis of plaintiff not having “standing”. It was a ruling that defined (or redefined if you will for anyone insisting on trying to read 18th century minds in favor of their hero) natural born citizen as someone whose parent is an American citizen at the time of their birth. Location of that birth is not relevant. Not a huge surprise for me since two out of my three kids were born overseas and the local U.S. Embassy had no problem issuing birth certificates and passports for their first trip back home. This decision can be appealed. There are higher courts. But the chances a court would overturn it are very slim.
The original definition of Natural Born Citizen was a person born to two American Citizens. We shall see how this new definition plays out going forward. Probably will go to the Supreme Court eventually to make a final determination.
Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini relied on articles rather than law and precedent.