4 ms·
Except that one of the arguments, if not chiefly, should be that the actual actions (collection, spying, what have you) were unconstitutional - not that any leg
by MWil 13y ago
Except that one of the arguments, if not chiefly, should be that the actual actions (collection, spying, what have you) were unconstitutional - not that any legislative or executive action were passed which Congress has not authorized recourse to. It's as simple as that - fight the behavior directly as it violates privacy rights, regardless of what Congress or the Executive has done.
It's true that Congress holds two very powerful jurisdiction stripping abilities but the ability to interpret the Constitution will never be subject to that. Interestingly, the Supreme Court may be stripped of that ability but a State or inferior Federal Court should always be able to hear such a case if there is standing otherwise.
(Starting with "Except..." sounds wrong b/c you ^ are correct in regards to statutory recourse, it just shouldn't have been dismissed based on other grounds available which you actually explained pretty well below)
- ubernostrum 13y agoWell, the problem -- though not necessarily the specific problem here -- is that "the government did something unconstitutional" is not enough to make a lawsuit. The deeper issue is whether someone has "standing" to sue, and federal courts (and especially the Supreme Court) have a history of using that to sweep inconvenient issues under the rug when they don't want to make a decision. For example, a standing-based argument against an NSA surveillance lawsuit might admit that, if someone were able to sue, they would certainly prevail on constitutional grounds, but then dismiss the suit anyway because the person suing can't demonstrate they've been harmed by the government action. If the only way you can find out that the action took place is through an illegal disclosure of classified information, for example, it may be there's no evidence you can legally present in court to show you were harmed (this is a variant of the "you weren't supposed to know you were targeted" argument). And that's without getting into the thicket of sovereign immunity (which is not the state-secrets doctrine, but rather the idea that you can't actually sue the government directly unless the government lets you; instead you have to find some specific government official who you can argue exceeded constitutional authority. Good luck doing that when everything that's happened is classified).
- MWil 13y agoStanding is not a legal barrier, it's a functional (unilaterally created) one. It's main purpose being to prevent taxpayer suits and therefore a level of suits that might be unmaintainable by the justice system (weak). So I may be mistaken but I don't believe though that the rules of evidence apply so that standing could be denied on the grounds as you hypothesized them. The question is whether the matter should even be heard as a "case" so I would think it would be odd to conduct it as if it were a case when making that determination.
- rayiner 13y agoThe standing doctrines are legal barriers and serve important purposes. Statutory standing ensures that when people sue under a statute, as one of the ACLU's claims purports to do, that the statute was actually intended to allow that sort of suit by that sort of plaintiff. Standing also ensures that the proper parties bring suit rather than people with a tenuous interest in the case. Finally, standing had an important Constitutional dimension, partly jurisdictional. Article III courts are only empowered to hear concrete cases or controversies. This ensures that courts actually resolve individual legal disputes, rather than infringing on the territory of the elected branched and getting into political disputes.
- rayiner 13y agoThis has nothing to do with jurisdiction stripping or the primary constitutional argument. Its about the secondary statutory argument.