Law Professor Rory K. Little has this essay on California Lawyer blog. He argues that there is no constitutional basis for so many constitutional cases to be rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, and lower courts, on the basis that the plaintiffs don’t have standing. Thanks to Howard Bashman for the link.
Add a U.S.A. / States Const Amdt for standing — for the same reason that the *Secret Ballot* was added in many/all State Consts ??? Duh.
This is something I want to read a lot more about. The author talks about how this is a 20th century phenomenon.
The expanding standing doctrine is primarly preventing the political system from having to account.
I’ve heard Prof Johnathan Turley of Geo Wash U make the observation that standing is being generally denied.
This issue is of concern to a political party that is worth voting for; the obvious irony is that the gradual and “prudent” abolition of standing to artificially lends to the over-stable (unaccountable) political system, makes the work of such a party straight uphill.