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
Oops. Should read: "that's not individual and particularized. . ."
What part of “this is not a government action” do you not understand? And YOU are the non-lawyer I’m talking about.
This restraining order is not to restrain actions of the government. It is to restrain the Democratic Party.