Good post thanks. So you are saying to challenge the constitutionality of a law you have to have a person to whom it is applied sue. Well, I am glad I posted this because I am learning alot.
That is the requirement. First of all, a law is only some words on a paper until an enforcement agency interprets and enforces its interpretation to punish you. Then you are a specifically aggrieved person with specific losses so you have an interest in fully representing the side of the challenger (as opposed to someone who has no, what Obama calls, skin in the game). The case is considered “unripe” if the law hasn’t yet been applied to someone, or “moot” if that person never had or no longer has a direct personal loss to vindicate.