Here’s what I’m trying to understand. This statement is from a 5th Circuit decision in Hunter v Obama et al – Mary Lou Robinson – 01/16/2009.
“Plaintiff’s failure to show standing leaves this Court without jurisdiction to consider this case and the case must be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).”
Isn’t the Court’s interpretation of Article III requirements defined within the FRCP?
Why wouldn’t changing FRCP 12(b)(1) be a method to provide a “forum of last resort” for The People when elected officials refuse to resolve a political question because it is not in their political interest to do so?
(I know, Congress would never ratify such a Rule ...)
Rule 12(b)(1) says that a court must dismiss a case if there is no subject-matter jurisdiction, but the rule itself doesn't say whether a court has jurisdiction or not. Subject-matter jurisdiction has two components-- first, the case must be within the "judicial power" of the United States as defined by Article III, section 2 of the Constitution; secondly, there must also be a statute passed by Congress giving some specific court jurisdiction. If there is no "judicial power" under Article III, Congress cannot fix the problem. In the case of the standing doctrine, the courts are interpreting Article III, so there is no ready congressional fix.