A polemic against the standing requirement in constitutional cases

Patrick, Jeremy (2013) A polemic against the standing requirement in constitutional cases. Capital University Law Review, 41. pp. 603-635. ISSN 0198-9693

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.


Statistics for USQ ePrint 24306
Statistics for this ePrint Item
Item Type: Article (Commonwealth Reporting Category C)
Refereed: Yes
Item Status: Live Archive
Additional Information: Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters.
Faculty / Department / School: Historic - Faculty of Business and Law - School of Law
Date Deposited: 01 Dec 2013 23:01
Last Modified: 16 Jul 2014 00:05
Uncontrolled Keywords: Standing, Justiciability, Constitution, Injury
Fields of Research : 18 Law and Legal Studies > 1801 Law > 180108 Constitutional Law
18 Law and Legal Studies > 1801 Law > 180122 Legal Theory, Jurisprudence and Legal Interpretation
18 Law and Legal Studies > 1801 Law > 180102 Access to Justice
Socio-Economic Objective: C Society > 94 Law, Politics and Community Services > 9404 Justice and the Law > 940406 Legal Processes
URI: http://eprints.usq.edu.au/id/eprint/24306

Actions (login required)

View Item Archive Repository Staff Only