According to the prop 8 "defendants", the constitution should only apply to people that have sued and won a case. It seems, according to the "defendants", that if someone sues the state over a particular law and that law is found unconstitutional, well, it should only be unconstitutional for the person that won the lawsuit.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/09/prop-8-supporters-claim-appeals-court-exceeded-jurisdiction.html

Apply the same logic to the many legal suits of the very long Civil Rights era, or the many suits regarding specific sexual activities (oral sex, for example), or reproductive rights (the right of people, married or unmarried, to use contraception, etc.).

The very PURPOSE of this kind of legal finding is that it is to apply to "everyone" (meaning: everyone who might be affected).

Interesting argument, though.

Berry, berry interesting. :-)

A law professor actually argues that constitutional decisions have no impact unless the plaintiffs are certified as a class?

What about criminal defendant cases?

If Prof. Amar correct that would invalidate about 95% of the constitutional law cases ever decided (the huge majority of everything decided on an as-applied rather than facial basis).

I doubt any court would uphold such an idea simply because of the issue of 'judicial economy' when requiring as-applied constitutional issues to be litigated over and over again, each party being a new case.

I think that is just plain nonsense.

*bangs head on table*