Can you explain then how a disgruntled atheist can get standing to sue the federal government because of a cross on a lone hill in the Mojave Desert??? Federal judges have no fixed rules for standing and and they have shown it regularly by some of the goofy cases that they hear and consider.
Do you have skin cancer? Sue the federal government for global warming.
Do you sympathize with the spotted owl or the fish darter, sue the federal government, be granted standing [even though you are not a fish or owl], have your case heard, be granted discovery, and win. Is that what you are saying???
Changing the rules of standing to what you want will be an absolute bonanza for left-wing organizations.
Who wants them changed. We want the same rights to standing and having a valid Constitutional case heard as the atheist and deranged environmentalist and global warming nutcases. Is that asking too much???
The fish darter is not in the Constitution, nor is any mention of spotted owls nor crosses on lone hills in the desert, but the "natural born citizen" clause is front and center.
The hypocrisy and duplicity of the federal courts along with the corruption of the Constitution in the process is what we are all seeing here --
BTW Welcome to Free Republic, Mr Plant.
You are a "plant", right???
I’m not really up to date on my spotted owl law. I believe standing in those cases was created by federal statute.
Congress could pass a law that states that individual citizens have the right to sue for enforcement of the natural born provision clause of the Constitution. That would eliminate the standing problem in all these cases.