Sorry, I'm confused and hope you can help clarify.... how on earth could Berg not have standing?
I know this is what the DNC & FEC motion intends to have ruled on, but it doesn't make sense to me that any citizen of PA and member of the Democratic party could fail to have standing in questions related to the eligibility of the Democratic candidate.
I've gone on in some detail on other threads about this, but here is the short version. Standing, as it relates to this matter, is a constitutional requirement. It stems from Article III's requirement that the federal judiciary hear only "cases and controversies."
In order to have standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate individual and particularized injury that differs from the injury suffered by the public at large. Berg's problem is that his injury is the exact same injury that everyone else in America has: the "injury" of being offended that constitution may be violated, or, perhaps, the inability to vote for the candidate of his choice. That's also the same injury suffered by the public at large.
Because Berg can't show that his injury is different than that of the public, he doesn't have standing.
I've gone on in some detail on other threads about this, but here is the short version. Standing, as it relates to this matter, is a constitutional requirement. It stems from Article III's requirement that the federal judiciary hear only "cases and controversies."
In order to have standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate individual and particularized injury that differs from the injury suffered by the public at large. Berg's problem is that his injury is the exact same injury that everyone else in America has: the "injury" of being offended that constitution may be violated, or, perhaps, the inability to vote for the candidate of his choice. That's also the same injury suffered by the public at large.
Because Berg can't show that his injury is different than that of the public, he doesn't have standing.