Good luck with that. However, let me save you a lot of time and tell you what will happen: SCOTUS, if it even gets that far, will simply refuse to hear it, as this has already been decided by Ark.
SCOTUS has refused to hear these cases without comment - and letting the lower courts' rulings of "lack of standing" stand. NO COURT HAS CITED ARK AS STARE DECISIS IN DISMISSING THESE CASES.
The Indiana court of appeals did. See Ankeny and Kruse v. Indiana:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Their discussion of Ark starts on page 13.
You know, you don't have ANYTHING but Ark
There are also the books and cases cited by Ark, which you were kind enough to reproduce on this thread. All of them support my position, not yours. Unfortuantely, your reading skills are so poor, you can't figure that out for yourself.
Instead you project and call me stupid. I feel sorry for you.
The Indiana Court of Appeals decision has no binding authority in the federal courts. This is a federal constitutional question. Federal court authority supercedes and it is not a settled question there yet.
The Court, in this case, relied on:
" ... The sole issue is whether the trial court erred when it dismissed Plaintiff's complaint. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of the claim, not the facts supporting it General Cas. Ins. Co. v. Bright, 885 N.E.2d 56, 57 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Charter One Mortg. Corp. v. Condra, 865 N.E.2d 602, 604 (Ind. 2007)). Thus, our review of a trial court's grant or denial of a motion based on Trial Rule 12(B)(6) is de novo. Id. at 58 ..."
The Court further stated:
" ... We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation's history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478 ..."
So, the Indiana Court of Appeals admits that Ark DID NOT declare NBC. But, the Court then went on to conclude that Obama is NBC under Ark.
As previously stated [above] Ark DID NOT pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen”. It ALSO stated that the only issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States.
So on one hand, the Court states that Ark DID NOT pronounce the plaintiff a "natural born citizen" AND that this issue was whether Ark was only a "citizen".
On the other hand, they then conclude BECAUSE of Ark - Obama IS NBC.
Contradictory opinions in the same decision.
What the Indiana Court of Appeals did here was to DISREGARD the specific language of the decision in Ark [stating that SCOTUS' lacking to pronounce Ark NBC was immaterial]. It then promoted its own interpretation of the background of Ark in order to arrive at its conclusion that Ark WAS NBC - AND it had the judicial hubris to cite the original Ark decision as the precedent.
That IS NOT stare decisis - it is an unjustified re-interpretation of a settled case in order to justify the conclusion that the court came to. AND, it is an inferior court trying to re-define a superior court's decision.
And, isn't it strange that the opinion DOES NOT contain a single reference to stare decisis ???
However, as stated in the beginning of this post, the decision was REALLY based on failure to state a claim - not Ark. The re-interpretation of Ark was a "political" statement by the Court and cannot be held as precedent anywhere