in Jones V Bush, Jones was the plantiff who claimed Cheney was a citizen of Texas, not Wyoming. According to the 12th amendment, if both members of the ticket came from the same state, that ticket would have to forfeit all of their Electoral votes for that state. The federal courts ruled that Jones had no standing since Jones was not a candidate. It was a good ruling because it prevented Jones from usurping the electoral process.
So the court ruled that in that situation an ordinary citizen and voter did not have standing. How does that relate to a reservist wantting to know if called up and given an order by the C-in-C to kill people he needs to know whether (A) the order is legitimate or (B) the order is given by one not entitled to give it so as to put the officer in jeopardy under the Nuremberg prinicple. Are you saying that if we have a Hitler-style takeover here which could have been prevented by exposing the illegitimacy of the One seeking to take over, obeying the orders of the One to kill, let us say, American conservatives, will be required without questioning?
Didn't it also prevent enforcement of the Twelfth Amendment? "Standing" is supposed to be granted based on legal entitlements and expectation of harm. Who is legally entitled to the benefits of the Twelfth Amendment? Who is harmed if the Twelfth Amendment is not enforced?
The Ninth Circuit played "standing" games in one of the "assault weapons ban" cases. The Court denied standing to people who could be put in prison by stating that the Second Amendment protects only Militias. That might be a reason to rule against the plaintiffs, but the threat of prison should have been sufficient to grant standing.