To: MWestMom
Could someone please explain to me why an American citizen has no standing when an illegally elected POTUS would impact me personally and directly through any legislation that he signs or EO that he puts in place. I do not understand the parsing of language here.Because that would affect everyone in the country equally, meaning that it could be resolved through the electoral process (as one of my law professors put it, "if everyone has standing, then no one has standing"). Someone with a unique personal stake would have standing (Mitt Romney, for example).
To: Lurking Libertarian
Because that would affect everyone in the country equally...
Yes. And if anyone wants to look further, the controlling precedent on this question is usually taken to be Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a 1992 SCOTUS decision written by Antonin Scalia.
"This Court has consistently held that a plaintiff claiming only a generally available grievance about government, unconnected with a threatened concrete interest of his own, does not state an Article III case or controversy."
To: Lurking Libertarian
AS long as everybody is dead, nobody is dead. I get it.
(puke)
To: Lurking Libertarian
Thank you LL. That makes sense.
176 posted on
02/01/2013 9:10:28 AM PST by
MWestMom
(Will Americans stop someone who views our children as "collateral damage" in their quest for power?)
To: Lurking Libertarian
Heads up people. The judge in this case acknowledged that Jordan had standing. She had standing. Got it? I think this was only the 2nd time in over 100 cases where the judge did that.
211 posted on
02/01/2013 4:58:34 PM PST by
ethical
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson