It's my understanding that "standing" is not in the constitution or the bill of rights and the courts pretty much just made it up
while it is the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is not (and was not written to be) an all encompassing document specifically listing every aspect of our lives.
And, the Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution. AND, if you read the Bill of Rights, you'll find where it specifically states that not all our rights are listed.
As to standing being something the courts made up, sure, the entire judicial process is something the courts "made up" under the authority granted the Judicial branch by the Constitution.
The idea one needs to be harmed by such a thing first is absurd IMHO .
You are free to hold any opinion you want, but that doesn't change anything but your own mind. The concept of "standing" is important, and valid, and is there to allow the courts to operate reasonably efficiently.
Standing matters, so that the courts are not hopelessly clogged. The general idea is, that if something "neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket" then the courts are not the olace to seek redress of your grievances.
Sometimes it seems to delay what we feel is justice, but one has to have rules and limitations or the process dissolves into complete chaos, which helps no one and harms us all.
If no one is harmed, or potentially harmed, the court is wasting its time listening to their arguments.
If something injures you, to go to court. If it offends you, court is not the place to go. The Lesiglature might be, but court is not.
And if you, personally, suffer no injury (or potential injury) the court cannot "make you whole" because you were not harmed. SO, you, personally don't have standing to sue.
Look at the DC handgun ban law for one specific example. DC passed a law saying you could not have a working handgun (even going so far as to state the gun could not be fully assembled) in the District.
We were horrified, outraged and upset, firmly believing this law to be unConstitutional.
BUT, could not challenge the law in DC without someome who had standing to do so. That meant someone who lived within the jurisdiction of the law, and was harmed, or potentially harmed by it.
Took some time to find someone who both fit that category and was willing/able to seek legal redress of their condition. That was Heller, and when that case finally went before the Supreme Court, they did rule against the DC law. The system works. Even if SCOTUS had upheld the DC law, the system still works. It doesn't work as fast as we might wish, but it does work.
I believe that the CA law will, eventually, be ruled as the BS that it is, and tossed out, along with every decision based on it, but until our system gets there. we'll just have to do the best we can.
