Is the Constitution the supreme law of the land or not?
Can anyone cite me to ANY writing by ANY founder that says or implies that a 'standing' requirement should trump an unconstitutional law or application of law?
Excellent point. The Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. To follow a "standing" requirement at the expense of the Constitution is like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
Sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees.
In my lawsuits against the grossly unconstitutional "smog impact fee," I used to wonder why the opposing attorneys and sometimes the judges (when the judges even bothered to express an opinion at all) were quibbling over trivial procedural rules when I was charging that there was a gross violation of the Constitution.
I think that we just need to throw out a lot of precedents and just go back to first principles.
Labels: Establishment clause