Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2182904
 
 

Footnotes (130)



 


 



A Polemic Against the Standing Requirement in Constitutional Cases


Jeremy Patrick


University of Southern Queensland School of Law

November 30, 2012

Capital University Law Review, Vol. 41, 2013

Abstract:     
This article argues that, in constitutional cases, the standing requirement should be flatly abolished. The primary flaw with standing doctrine is that renders large swathes of the Constitution functionally worthless, contrary to the clear intention of the text and the structure of the document itself, as well as the intentions of those who drafted and ratified it. Further, standing doctrine lacks textual support, historical support, a role in maintaining the separation of powers, or any other practical necessity to warrant its retention.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 24

Keywords: Standing, Justiciability, Constitution, Injury

JEL Classification: K10, K40

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: November 30, 2012 ; Last revised: November 28, 2013

Suggested Citation

Patrick, Jeremy, A Polemic Against the Standing Requirement in Constitutional Cases (November 30, 2012). Capital University Law Review, Vol. 41, 2013. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2182904 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2182904

Contact Information

Jeremy J. Patrick (Contact Author)
University of Southern Queensland School of Law ( email )
Room Q-416
USQ
Toowoomba, QLD 4350
Australia
+61 7 4631 5374 (Phone)
HOME PAGE: http://legalheresy.blogspot.com
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 283
Downloads: 54
Download Rank: 227,756
Footnotes:  130
People who downloaded this paper also downloaded:
1. Originalism and Constitutional Construction
By Lawrence Solum

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.312 seconds