A Polemic Against the Standing Requirement in Constitutional Cases

24 Pages Posted: 30 Nov 2012 Last revised: 28 Nov 2013

Jeremy Patrick

University of Southern Queensland School of Law

Date Written: November 30, 2012

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.

Keywords: Standing, Justiciability, Constitution, Injury

JEL Classification: K10, K40

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: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2182904 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2182904

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

Paper statistics

Downloads
65
Rank
285,830
Abstract Views
509