Standing requires individual, particularized harm. >>>>>>
I’m a bit confused and I don’t want to be rude, but this is pretty simple:
If BHO knows he is not eligible and is dupping the Democrat party to become their nominee then he is committing fraud (which is one of the counts of the suit). That fraud would adverserely affect each individual democrat. That couldn’t be more individual and particularized harm.
So I don’t get your argument, especially about the establishment clause.
Someone else is asking me to PROVE that BHO traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. How should I know? It isn’t my lawsuit. What I said was, if that is true he is in a world of trouble.
You guys need to lay back and watch this unfold. Philip Berg is a big time trial lawyer. For some reason you non-lawyers want to address the issue of standing with him like he is a law student. Why don’t you just read the definition of standing out of the Black’s Law Dictionary to him.
I don’t know if this suit is real, if the accusations are real, BHO is in real trouble.
As you point out, it effects everyone equally. Actually, that's individual and particularized; it is a "general interest common to all members of the public," and that vague type harm--that Constitution isn't being followed--is insufficient to confer standing. As I pointed out, the Court's decision in Lance addresses this very issue:
"[A] plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government - claiming only harm to his and every other citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large - does not state an Article III case or controversy."
So I don’t get your argument, especially about the establishment clause.
Standing under the establishment clause, for whatever reason, is different. You can have standing to challenge governmental actions under the establishment clause simply be virtue of being a taxpayer. Taxpayer standing allows a plaintiff with only a generalized harm to proceed. This is the type of standing you're pushing for here, but the Court's been very clear that this type of standing doesn't fly outside establishment clause cases.
For some reason you non-lawyers want to address the issue of standing with him like he is a law student.
Someone here is a non-lawyer? Who's that? As far as Mr. Berg goes, it seems that he needs a refresher course on Art. III cases and controversies.
I’m a bit confused
Indeed. Here is a link to Lance. It is a short opinion; only five or six pages. Read it and tell me how Berg has standing, taking particular note of the discussion of Ex parte Levitt.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-641.pdf