Why not even Congress can sue the administration over unconstitutional executive actions
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/07/why-not-even-congress-can-sue-the-administration-over-unconstitutional-executive-actions/
<snip>
What happens if a president refuses to take care that the laws be faithfully executed as required by Article II of the Constitution? The Framers assumed that neither Congress nor the courts would tolerate such usurpation. In Federalist No. 48, James Madison said power was so divided and balanced among several bodies
that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. Madisons confidence assumes a wayward president could be reversed by the courts, reigned in by Congress or as a last resort impeached. But what if none of these checks and balances works? Americans may soon find out.
First, courts have limited ability to check a presidents failure to execute. The primary obstacle is standing, a doctrine that requires a plaintiff to have a concrete, personal injury in order to sue. Citizens cant file generic lawsuits to enforce the Constitution; they must prove that the government has harmed them in a personal, palpable way.
<snip>
Similarly, when the president decided not to deport certain young people, not to prosecute most marijuana users, and rewrote the work requirement of welfare reform, courts cannot rule on these acts constitutionality because no individual has suffered the personal harm required for standing. Sure, the Constitution and its separation of powers are tremendously harmed. But the Supreme Court has made clear such generalized societal harms wont suffice.
Congress probably cant sue the president, either. The Supreme Court has severely restricted so-called congressional standing, creating a presumption against allowing members of Congress to sue the president merely because he fails to faithfully execute its laws.
.....more