Here we go again , Another Law suit

[olevetonahill]

Again I dint vote for this but also again I DGARA if it stands or Is blocked

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20101109_14_0_Alglca802676&rss_lnk=11

[Frozen Sooner]

Well THIS one at least sounds in some standing issues.

[olevetonahill]

:confused: Splain please?

[The]

:confused: Splain please?

Como te llamas, pendejo. Mucho verde en estas pantalones grande, pero, no se dice la grange.

[Frozen Sooner]

In the other thread it was mentioned that the plaintiff may not have standing to sue for whatever reason. Based on a 5 minute look, I don't think that's a great argument.

In this one, the only injury alleged that I see at first is that she's a "taxpayer" and "resident of Oklahoma" who is concerned about the constitutionality of a law. A simple interest in the constitutionality of a law as a taxpayer is not enough to confer standing on a plaintiff--otherwise, you'd have people bringing fictitious suits left and right and not really arguing the merits of the case. The only exception is where the Constitution itself forbids the government to spend in a particular way: the Establishment Clause. Even then, if the particular government program isn't established under Congress' Spending Power, there's no standing as a taxpayer.

One case in particular was pretty great on this one--guy got all the way to the Supreme Court arguing that the 19th Amendment was unconstitutional

[The]

In the other thread it was mentioned that the plaintiff may not have standing to sue for whatever reason. Based on a 5 minute look, I don't think that's a great argument.

In this one, the only injury alleged that I see at first is that she's a "taxpayer" and "resident of Oklahoma" who is concerned about the constitutionality of a law. A simple interest in the constitutionality of a law is not enough to confer standing on a plaintiff--otherwise, you'd have people bringing fictitious suits left and right and not really arguing the merits of the case.

But if an Okie Russian-Only speaker brings it....?

[Frozen Sooner]

Then she might be able to assert standing. However, I don't know that the Constitution or Federal statute requires that the government conduct its business in any particular language, so I don't know what injury she's alleging. She might be able to claim that it's discriminatory against a suspect class, but in order to do so she'd have to show that the purpose of the law was to be discriminatory, not just that it'd have a larger effect on the suspect class.

[Frozen Sooner]

By the way, where this particular law is going to run into trouble is that significant highway funds are made contingent on provision of driver's exams in several languages. I guess OK can get around that because tag agencies are privately owned.