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 ...
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.
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.
'Standing' is a jurisprudential rule of judicial economy that is used to describe a party, or a prospective party seeking to intervene in a legal action with direct and palpable interests to protect in prosecuting or defending the cause at bar, and not something collateral or incidentally consequential due to what might, or what might not be affected by the outcome of the case. The opposite of standing arises from the constitutional language of 'cases and controversies', meaning that the courts will neither decide hypothetical questions nor render advisory opinions in matters that have no direct legal outcome as to the matter in dispute. There need to be real consequences to the hearing and settlement of the dispute, not the accumulation of debating points. The doctrine also gives assurances that the parties at bar will devote their best efforts to prevail, knowing the costs and consequences of failure. In plain language, I frequently heard a Presiding Judge ask one of the parties, "How are you hurt by this…?" Absent the hurt, there is little or nothing for the court to decide.
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.
'Standing' is a jurisprudential rule of judicial economy that is used to describe a party, or a prospective party seeking to intervene in a legal action with direct and palpable interests to protect in prosecuting or defending the cause at bar, and not something collateral or incidentally consequential due to what might, or what might not be affected by the outcome of the case. The opposite of standing arises from the constitutional language of 'cases and controversies', meaning that the courts will neither decide hypothetical questions nor render advisory opinions in matters that have no direct legal outcome as to the matter in dispute. There need to be real consequences to the hearing and settlement of the dispute, not the accumulation of debating points. The doctrine also gives assurances that the parties at bar will devote their best efforts to prevail, knowing the costs and consequences of failure. In plain language, I frequently heard a Presiding Judge ask one of the parties, "How are you hurt by this…?" Absent the hurt, there is little or nothing for the court to decide.