Also worth pointing out that the standing requirement arises from Art III and binds the federal judiciary. Specific states may or may not have similar limits.
The best example of a constitutional provision which no-one has standing to sue on is the guarantee of republican governments for the states (Article IV, s. 4).
In the 1840’s there was a serious political crisis in Rhode Island, with two competing state governments. Some citizens of Rhode Island challenged the legitimacy of one of the competing governments, arguing that it violated the constitutional guarantee of republican state governments.
The case eventually reached the Supreme Court. In Luther v Borden, the Court held that the republican guarantee was a political commitment for the elected branches of government, not the judicial branch. Since the courts lacked jurisdiction, no-one had standing to sue under the guarantee clause.
Whether the courts would treat the emoluments clause in the same way is an interesting question. I don’t know if te issue has ever arisen?
Seriously? The republic has a chief executive who is discharging his duties while subject to a conflict of interest and duty which the Constitution, for reasons which are too obvious to need elaboration, forbids. The potential for corruption, which the Constitution seeks to avoid, is created. The confidence of the people in the chief executive of the republic is diminished. The Constitution confers upon Congress the role of determining whether the acceptance of the emolument is proper; the Presidents frustrates this by not seeking the consent of Congress to the acceptance of the emolument concerned, thus attempting to avoid the exercise by Congress of its constitutional role. This is a further ground upon which the people’s confidence in the chief executive may be diminished - and also their confidence in the Congress, if it does nothing proactive to discharge its constitional functions with regard to emoluments. All of this diminishes the credit and creditworthiness of the institutions of the republic, which is a Bad Thing.
-
“Specific damage”. What you wrote is very much non-specific.
-
The question I was responding to was “Who would have standing to sue if there are violations of the Emoluments clause’s prohibition on accepting foreign titles?”. Read it again. Then if you feel you need to write a rant, at least write one that is relevant to the question.
Ok, that certainly makes sense.
The law you mentioned is kind of… inconsequential? What about a law that actually required some action on the part of some entity, or prohibited some action? That is, a law that had some real-world effect.
Could there be such a law that no one had standing to challenge?
My guess would be standing members of Congress since the clause explicitly gives Congress the ability to grant or hold permission. If the president simply ignores Congress on the topic, Congress is harmed by having its constitutional power diminished.
From my understanding, you have to participate in the NEPA process to have standing later on. So in theory, a EIS could happen with zero comments and no parties would have standing after the decision was reached. Doesn’t mean someone couldn’t sue.