3 ms·

As usual, perhaps I have not made myself clear. And before I go further, I should clarify that I've only taken one law school class, and I am not a lawyer. The

by rtl49 11y ago

As usual, perhaps I have not made myself clear. And before I go further, I should clarify that I've only taken one law school class, and I am not a lawyer. The issue I'm referring to is that no one is in a position to challenge this component of the FAA without demonstrating that they personally have sustained harm, meaning their rights as an individual have been violated. In other words, the issue is that there must be a "case or controversy" to test a legal hypothesis. If there were a means of challenging the constitutional validity of a law, or an interpretation of the law, without the burden of proving that one has personally sustained harm, then the public would be able to challenge this component of the FAA in situations other than one where a possibly dangerous person stands a chance of being released. I think few would be prepared to argue his case were it not for its legal significance. Correct me if I'm mistaken; you seem to be more educated on the subject.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
You're not actually arguing against the standing rule. If the government is violating your constitutional rights then you have standing. The problem is you may not be able to prove it. The government could have trivially helped everyone out simply by admitting that they're spying on all these people, and then the issue could have been decided before it was important to a real criminal case, under circumstances where nobody bad is let out of prison if the government loses. But then the person whose rights are violated in the deciding case ends up being a highly sympathetic journalist or civil rights leader instead of some highly unsympathetic terrorist wannabe. The government doesn't want that (because they don't want to lose), so instead they purposely try to force the situation in which bad people go free if the courts rule against the government.

by rtl49 11y ago

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

You're not actually arguing against the standing rule. If the government is violating your constitutional rights then you have standing. The problem is you may not be able to prove it. The government could have trivially helped everyone out simply by admitting that they're spying on all these people, and then the issue could have been decided before it was important to a real criminal case, under circumstances where nobody bad is let out of prison if the government loses. But then the person whose rights are violated in the deciding case ends up being a highly sympathetic journalist or civil rights leader instead of some highly unsympathetic terrorist wannabe. The government doesn't want that (because they don't want to lose), so instead they purposely try to force the situation in which bad people go free if the courts rule against the government.