Was talking about Arthur not obamaumao. The entire concept of “standing” needs to be taken out and washed. Total horsecrap. The People of the United States— the citizens— they have the standing instead of this “legalese”. They have the standing and will TAKE it from this “rule by judges” socialist state. Consent of the governed... we write the laws, not them.
Arthur's case is fascinating. He, of course, appointed Gray, who wrote the opinion in Wong Kim Ark. After studying it closely I come to the conclusion that Gray would have liked to let Arthur totally off the hook but came to the conclusion that he could not muster a majority if he did. As it was there was a strong dissent which, correctly, I believe, pointed out that the concept of an American federal law was distinct from English law under our federal system at the time of the Founding.
Gray mentioned the Article II eligibility clause in his opinion but did not purport to decide anything about it. He apparently wanted to give Arthur some cover given the concern about Arthur's status being voiced at the time but knew he could not go all the way to make the cover complete.
As it was he got away with upending the actual understanding of the Framers with regard to English law as it affected American federal, constitutional law.
As it stands, however, Cruz' eligibility under Article II is not affected by the Wong Kim Ark decision because even under the concepts of English law Cruz was not, by virtue of his birth in Canada to a Cuban father,under the "sovereignty" of our federal government.