The Supreme Court on Standing Part I

Judge Robert's is to be commended on his views

Art 1, Sect 3 of the Constitution says,
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public
Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a
State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

That first sentence says that the SCOTUS will hear original cases only in those situations. Otherwise they are an apellate court. No one who has not been through a lower federal court has standing before the SCOTUS. EXCEPT, under such laws as Congress shall make.

Congress has the jurisdiction of authority in the District of Coumbia and all the federal agenies there. They made a law way back when that the district attorney for DC would be the US Attorney in DC, and that SCOTUS would serve as their federal district court.

AND, if you then take into account that the Constitution applies only to the Union between the states, it is logical that no citizen would have standing as to their district court function. Only a state, a state legislator, and all federal employees working in DC have standing before the SCOTUS, except on an appeal.

That's why Berg, Denofrio, etc. were all found to have no standing. If a state legislature were to pass a resolution requiring Obama produce a birth certificate then it would go to trialwith the US Attorney for DC as the prosecutor.

Glenn Flowers

Glenn

Thanks for your comment. You are correct in regard to standing. I did not like the tone of the comments. To me the justices sounded condescending, "mere" and "any Joe public". After all they are supposed to be working for us.

What I am most concerned about is the effect of judicial restraint. Our constitutional system is based on the English idea of "mixed gov't is best". That each branch of gov't, executive, legislative, and judicial will act as a counter weight to the other so as to achieve a stability that each would not have by itself. However if judicial restraint is carried to far there is no oversight or counter balance on the part of the judicial. This would leave the executive or legislative or both without oversight. What is your though on this?