Accountable
Well-Known Member
Anybody up for digging deep into the weeds of the US legal system? 
I've been reading up on a legal doctrine called "standing." Standing means that a person must be able to show that he has been or is in imminent danger of being harmed, in order to bring suit against an entity or law. Meaning, for instance, I can't sue Hostess for claiming bankruptcy, but I can sue the City of San Antonio for designating the street in front of my house as a toll road.
Where I'd like to take this discussion is to the US Supreme Court. In order to sue that a federal law is unconstitutional, and be heard by the US Supreme court, a person must be able to show that the unconstitutional law actually harms (or will harm) him directly. I don't like this because, in my opinion, the federal government's violation of the Constitution is harmful to the entire country.
But I became even more concerned when I found out that it is not considered direct harm for the federal gov't to take tax money to pay for an unconstitutional action or enforce an unconstitutional law. We've been taught that Marbury v Madison established the doctrine of judicial review, but that fell apart in 1923 with Frothingham v. Mellon, which we never hear about in Government or History class:
Since the Constitution is declared to be the "Law of the Land", I think any citizen has standing in interpreting the constitutionality of any federal law.
I've been reading up on a legal doctrine called "standing." Standing means that a person must be able to show that he has been or is in imminent danger of being harmed, in order to bring suit against an entity or law. Meaning, for instance, I can't sue Hostess for claiming bankruptcy, but I can sue the City of San Antonio for designating the street in front of my house as a toll road.
Where I'd like to take this discussion is to the US Supreme Court. In order to sue that a federal law is unconstitutional, and be heard by the US Supreme court, a person must be able to show that the unconstitutional law actually harms (or will harm) him directly. I don't like this because, in my opinion, the federal government's violation of the Constitution is harmful to the entire country.
But I became even more concerned when I found out that it is not considered direct harm for the federal gov't to take tax money to pay for an unconstitutional action or enforce an unconstitutional law. We've been taught that Marbury v Madison established the doctrine of judicial review, but that fell apart in 1923 with Frothingham v. Mellon, which we never hear about in Government or History class:
Since the Constitution is declared to be the "Law of the Land", I think any citizen has standing in interpreting the constitutionality of any federal law.
