Generally, a standing issue has to do whether or not the person bringing a lawsuit has a legal right to bring the suit.
In his 34 page decision, Judge Surrick sees no "injury" resulting from a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause:
So, who does have standing to challenge whether a presidential candidate meets the constitutional eligibility requirement of being a "natural born citizen?" According to Surrick, that is completely up to Congress:
Until Congress does that, voters do not have standing to bring a lawsuit challenging a presidential candidate's constitutional eligibility.
Berg issued a press release saying he will appeal:
This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?
So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned. According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.
What happened to ‘...Government of the people, by the people, for the people,...’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.
Berg's appeal is not likely to succeed. The way Obama and the Democratic National Committee fought Berg's lawsuit, and the way Judge Surrick dismissed it, leaves the question of Obama's constitutional eligibility unresolved.
Judge Surrick obviously didn't think much of Berg's evidence:
Nevertheless, because the case was dismissed on the standing issue, not on the merits of Berg's allegations that Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen, the issue will continue to dog Obama until Obama produces documents that prove Obama's eligibility and make the question go away?