I see the Law and Constitutional Interpretation as something that constantly evolves. - Constitutional "Originalists" say that the Constitution is what the Founding Fathers understood and intended. What is lawful "standing" in USA and elsewhere ??

.

The most dangerous originalist is U. S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas ( born 1948 ) this is President's Obama greatest headache in the Supreme Court, a super conservative similar to Rick Perry with his hate for Social Security and all advancements of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.

It is very ironic that the Greatest Obstacle for President Obama in the Supreme Court is another "Black" guy. Although Obama is considered a "Black Guy" only because of human foolishness, intolerance, prejudice, bigotry and racism.

This post is valid for all nations and constitutions, and for unwritten constitutions like in England, where there is only a vague "Carta Magna"...

For example different courts of appeals have different interpretations of the Constitution and the Law. And they contradict each other. The U. S. Supreme Court has contradicted itself hundreds of times with the passage of centuries.

An example :


A Federal Court : the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond Virginia dismissed two lawsuits Thursday that had challenged the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul


So Obama Health Care Law was upheld, this Federal Court Dismissed the Challenge To Affordable Care Act.


The three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in both lawsuits – one filed by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, the other by Liberty University – that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. The court did not delve into the constitutional issues.


Another appeals court in Atlanta struck down the insurance mandate. And a federal appeals court in Cincinnati also upheld the law like the court in Virginia.

But what is "standing" ??

With help from Wikipedia :

Standing ( Law ) in Wikipedia




Some excerpts :

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law.

International Courts

The Council of Europe created the first international court before which individuals have automatic locus standi.

United States

In United States law, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated, "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues".

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.[12] Federal courts may exercise power only "in the last resort, and as a necessity".

The American doctrine of standing is assumed as having begun with the case of Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923). But, legal standing truly rests its first prudential origins in Fairchild v. Hughes, (1922) which was authored by Justice Brandeis. In Fairchild, a citizen sued the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to challenge the procedures by which the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified. Prior to it the doctrine was that all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right.[14] Since then the doctrine has been embedded in judicial rules and some statutes.

The doctrine on standing has recently been modified by the unanimous opinion in Bond v. United States in which it was held an individual has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute under the Tenth Amendment.

There are three standing requirements:

Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.

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.[16]

Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.

..........