Share this comment
Hi Lucian I am surprised you didn't mention another unconstitutional elephant in the room, The Vigilantes are random plaintiffs without any relationship to the woman ( with possible the exception of the father of the embryo or the woman's parents) have no standing to sue according to the requirements of Article III. Please critique this idea.
Hi Lucian
I am surprised you didn't mention another unconstitutional elephant in the room, The Vigilantes are random plaintiffs without any relationship to the woman ( with possible the exception of the father of the embryo or the woman's parents) have no standing to sue according to the requirements of Article III. Please critique this idea.
There is no reference to the requirement of standing that I can find in Article Three.
What is standing under Article III?
Although the Court has been inconsistent, it has now settled upon the rule that, “at an irreducible minimum,” the constitutional requisites under Article III for the existence of standing are that the plaintiff must personally have: 1) suffered some actual or threatened injury; 2) that injury can fairly be traced to ...
https://www.law.cornell.edu › clause
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_%28law%29?wprov=sfla1
I know what standing is. Show me where you find it in Article 3.
From the Standing Wiki pedia entry scroll down the page to the section for United States and the chain of logic and cases is listed .
"There are a number of requirements that a plaintiff must establish to have standing before a federal court. Some are based on the case or controversy requirement of the judicial power of Article Three of the United States Constitution, § 2, cl.1. As stated there, "The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . .[and] to Controversies . . ." The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers.
". As stated there, "The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . .[and] to Controversies . . ." The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers. Federal courts may exercise power only "in the last resort, and as a necessity".
Blah blah blah.....
"Standing requirements
There are three standing requirements:
Injury-in-fact: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract). The injury can be either economic, non-economic, or both.
Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.
Prudential limitations
I am aware of all the legal analysis of what flows from Article 3. But it's not in the language of the Constitution and the law concerns state courts. I'm not sure how relevant it is. And now I am going to bed. Having written 1500 words on the subject of the Texas law, 1500 words I am not aware of anyone else has written with a POV and angle entirely mine, I am finished with the subject for the time being.