Well, I think standing is more than just historical damage. I think if you can prove that imminent, direct, personal damage would take place, you have standing.
And although I know that federal courts avoid advisory opinions on unsettled states laws or criminal cases, this is clearly a constitutional question. Honestly, why would the Constitution have an NBC requirement if there was no way to prevent a non-NBC candidate from being sworn in? That is not consistent with original intent. I think in this case a federal court would be constitutionally authorized to take this case and give an advisory opinion - basically a decision about Cruz’s eligibility.
Read up on it. The only party with “Preventative” Standing is the government and that is very narrowly defined mostly to criminal activity and environment.
“Honestly, why would the Constitution have an NBC requirement if there was no way to prevent a non-NBC candidate from being sworn in?” That indeed is a $64,000 question.
My assumption is that they were concerned right after the Revolution about some Loyalist being able to get elected and sliding us right back to King George. By leaving NBC undefined and beyond natural citizenship, they could “define” by decree, “it” as a case made it necessary and deny any person as they wished, NBC for POTUS purposes.
If NBC was such a big thing they saw in the future, why did not they intentionally leave it both undefined and aside the normally recognized natural citizenship? Simply put, once that generation and immediate Loyalists were gone the need ceased and regular natural citizen is the definition they choose by abstention.