And I would ask what is your motive when you misrepresent what Berg has said publicly, and completely ignore what he has said in his own lawsuit?
***You first, newbie.
"We're dealing with the U.S. Constitution and it must be followed," Berg explained. "I want the Constitution enforced; that's my main reason for doing this.
"The real outrage is that there's nothing in our system that provides that a candidate must provide that his qualifications are true and correct before he or she runs, and that safeguard should be put into our system by law," Berg said.
Here Berg demonstrates that he has little understanding of the Constitution he says he wants enforced.
The most salient portion of the above is Berg's saying "...there's nothing in our system that provides that a candidate must provide that his qualifications are true and correct before he or she runs..."
Berg seems to not understand that the federal government has no say as to who may run. Who may run is entirely a state issue.
To understand why this is the case, you have to understand that we do not directly elect the President in the United States. Instead, the President is elected by the electors who make up the Electoral College. And the appointment of those electors is left, by the Constitution, to the legislatures of the various states.
From Article II, Section 1, Clause 2:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress.
While not required to, all of the state legislatures have chosen to have their electors appointed by way of popular vote for those candidates whose names appear on their state ballots.
So, if you wish to run for the office of President, you don't go to the federal government and say "I'd like to run for President. What do I have to do in order to qualify to be on the ballot?"
Instead, you have to go to each state and tell THEM "I'd like to run for President. What do I have to do in order to qualify to be on your ballot?"
There isn't a singular federal system as Berg implies, but instead there are 51 state systems (the 1 includes DC, which isn't a state but gets three electoral votes). And each state's legislature decides what the qualifications are to appear on each state's ballot. Not the Constitution or any federal laws.
The Constitution explicitly, and without any restrictions, leaves the appointment of electors up to each state.
And it is within the power of each state to establish the qualifications for being on the state ballot, which can include that a candidate meet the eligibility requirements of Article II.
At least one state, Texas, includes this qualification in their state election laws.
Anyway, the point here is that Berg doesn't seem to understand any of this.