The McCain one was different than the Obama one, because McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, the Panama Canal Zone was a U.S. territory at the time of McCain’s birth on Aug. 29, 1936 which was during the time his dad was serving our country. So McCain was considered a U.S. citizen.
Actually McCain would have been covered under the Naturalization Act of 1790 which was passed to clarify the definition of "natural-born" for families in just his situation. But that's not even my point.
In the memorandum of law, it was pointed out that Hollander had no standing (I'm too tired and and it is too long to goin into detail, you'll have to read it for yourself)because he had suffered no injur, and certainly no more than any other voter.
It goes on to say that the nominating process was not a "state funtion" but rather a function of the political parties, thus the courts could not act.
The final point that I can recall is that, for the court to act, it would usurp the separation of powers.
Now, I can't see Berg's case being any different than Hollanders regarding these points, regardless of issues of truth.
What I cannot find anywhere (except in the case of the vice president), what the remedy is for a violation of Article II, section I, clause 5! The closest I can come to based on what I've just read is that it falls to 1) the electoral college of, 2) the congress. As currently constituted, i'll take the EC over the congress.
If anyone has knowledge of what the remedy would be for this violation of eligiblity, please post it. I am dying top know!