Congressman John Conyers, in a diary today
http://www.dailykos.com/... , brought up the issue of
standing relative to taking the executive branch to court for signing a law that wasn't affirmed by both houses of Congress. There were two separate versions of the law, and Bush only signed one.
Now on the flip side, here's an excerpt from Representative Conyer's diary, that is relative to the issue I want to explore::
Several public interest groups have sought to stop some parts of the bill from being implemented, under the theory that the bill is unconstitutional. However, getting into the weeds a bit, they have lacked the ability to stop the entire bill. To seek this recourse, the person bringing the suit must have what is called "standing," that is they must show they were injured or deprived of some right. Because the budget bill covers so many areas of the law, it is difficult for one person to show they were harmed by the entire bill. Thus, many of these groups have only sought to stop part of it.
After consulting with some of the foremost constitutional experts in the nation, I determined that one group of people are injured by the entire bill: Members of the House. We were deprived of our right to vote on a bill that is now being treated as the law of the land.
So, I am going to court.....
We all owe thanks to Representative Conyers for his repeated defence of the Constitution and our rights. Lets give the man a big hand!!!
This issue of standing was recently addressed by the Supreme Court in another case that concerns all voting citizens in this country. Lynn Landes* petitioned the courts for protection of her rights as a voter.. The lower courts claimed she did not have standing to petition for her rights, as her case was stated. She appealed the issue of standing to the Supreme Court. They upheld the lower court's rulings, meaning they agreed she didn't have the right to petition the courts for her case.
Between Congressman Conyers and Lynn Landes' cases, I considered the doctrine of "standing". The following poem emerged :
Standing Room Only
Leave the courts of this great land
Only those "standing" may demand
a court's consideration..
Proving "injury" without a doubt,
to some "right" with current clout
is the first necessitation.
None may speculate the hurt,
there must exist explicit dirt,
thrown in the situation.
One's petition must demonstrate,
between injury and law, a state
of clearly seen causation.
Finally, one must clearly see
the court can rule the remedy.
or judged useless rumination.
So,on your knees , outside the door,
Hold your grievances in store,
scarce STAND determination.
copyright by
MKMeadows
April 28, 2006
Wikipedia gives this short list regarding what determines 'standing':
Constitutional requirements
There are three constitutional standing requirements:
1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury - an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual, imminent, distinct, and palpable, not abstract.
2. 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.
3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/..._(law)
Lynn Landes' voter rights case* is about the right to have her vote counted, and for verification through access and tangible paper ballots. It won't be considered by the courts, because the Supreme Court determined she has no STANDING in the case.. In other words, she has no right to present her petition to protect her voting rights.
Standing determinations go all the way back to the time of George Washington, but the Courts have tightened standing doctrine through the years, making it nearly impossible to be heard in Court, if the Court doesn't want to hear your case. For how does one prove injury, if the evidence of a case is not given merit for consideration in the first place. It leaves justice up to political climates, the personalities and political leanings of Judges, and HARMS the constitutional right of PETITION. Then how does one PROVE one is harmed by not being able to petition the courts?
Standing doctrine confuses both lower courts and litigants, because the Court manipulates the doctrine to serve other objectives. When the Court wants to reach the merits of a case, the standing doctrine is often relaxed. Conversely, when the Court wishes to avoid deciding the merits of a case--or perhaps, when it wants to shut a whole category of cases out of court--, the requirements for standing are tightened.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/...
The doctrine governing STANDING knocks our constitutional feet right out from under us. In denying Lynn Landes her day in court, the Supreme Court apparently wants to shut out cases about election law and voter's rights. Is it time for a national referendum on our right to vote and to have our votes be honestly and accurately counted? Lynn Landes posted the following on her website, which is linked below:
Supreme Court Denies Standing & Allows Costs Against Voting Rights Activist
Washington DC -- April 4, 2006: In an alarming wake-up call to voting rights activists accross the country, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand last week a decision by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The lower court ruled (Landes v Tartaglione, et al) that Philadelphia journalist and voting rights activist, Lynn Landes, had no standing to challenge the constitutionality of election laws which Landes claimed deny direct access to a tangible ballot and meaningful transparency to the election process.
Specifically, Landes challenged the use of voting machines and absentee voting in elections for public office. The defendants in the lawsuit were Margaret Tartaglione, Chair of the City Commissioners of Philadelphia; Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States.
Landes says that the court's decision does not mean that the use of obstructive and non-transparent voting processes or technologies is constitutional. But, it doesn't send a good signal, either.
"Since I represented myself without the support of a voting rights organization, this decision may be a matter of the Court not taking me seriously, rather than any reflection on the case itself," says Landes. She points out that the Third Circuit based its dubious decision on three cases that had nothing to do with elections, voting rights, or challenges to the constitutionality of state and/or federal law.
Landes encourages activists to continue to pursue legal action, but adds a strong note of caution. "The Court is now packed with extremely conservative judges who are taking extraordinary steps to discourage civil rights litigants," she warns.
Lynn has some suggestions for what individual voters CAN do. She also gave an example of powerful results that came from using those suggestions. Go to her website and read the original article for that information:
http://www.ecotalk.org/...
*Here is a brief bio of who she is, with contact information.
Lynn Landes is one of the nation's leading journalists on voting technology and democracy issues. She has also written on the subject of the environment and health. Readers can find her articles and research at EcoTalk.org. Formerly, Lynn was a news reporter for DUTV and commentator for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Contact info: lynnlandes@earthlink.net / (215) 629-3553
*Here is an excerpt and a link to an article regarding Lynn's case, I posted on my website back in March before the Supreme Court's ruling, when I was trying to help raise some publicity for her case:
Landes claims that, as a voter and a journalist, she has the right to direct access to a physical ballot and to observe the voting process unimpeded. Voting by machine or absentee, Landes claims, introduces obstacles and concealment to a process that must be accessible and transparent in a meaningful and effective manner.
http://www.choicechanges.com/...
And here is the cross link of parts of this diary on Choicechanges.com.
http://www.choicechanges.com/...