قانون اساسی ادعا می‌کند که عمل با «ما مردم» است. با این حال، از آنجایی که نشان دهنده یک قرارداد اجتماعی عمومی است، محدودیت‌هایی برای توانایی شهروندان برای پیگیری دعاوی حقوقی که ادعا می‌شود ناشی از قانون اساسی است، وجود دارد. به عنوان مثال، اگر قانونی تصویب می‌شد که قانون اساسی را نقض می‌کرد، هیچ‌کس نمی‌توانست قانون اساسی این قانون را در دادگاه به چالش بکشد. در عوض، تنها فردی که تحت تأثیر قانون مغایر قانون اساسی قرار گرفته باشد، می‌تواند چنین چالشی را مطرح کند."Ala. State Fed'n of Labor v. McAdory", 325 U.S. 450, 463 (1945) ("Only those to whom a statute applies and who are adversely affected by it can draw in question its constitutional validity in a declaratory judgment proceeding as in any other."); "Premier-Pabst Sales Co. v. Grosscup", 298 U.S. 226, 227 (1936) ("One who would strike down a state statute as obnoxious to the Federal Constitution must show that the alleged unconstitutional feature injures him."); "Buscaglia v. Fiddler", 157 F.2d 579, 581 (1st Cir. 1946) ("It is a settled principle of law that no court will consider the constitutionality of a statute unless the record before it affords an adequate factual basis for determining whether the challenged statute applies to and adversely affects the one who draws it in question."); "Liberty Nat'l Bank v. Collins", 58 N.E.2d 610, 614 (Ill. 1944) ("The rule is universal that no one can raise a question as to the constitutionality of a statute unless he is injuriously affected by the alleged unconstitutional provisions. It is an established rule in this State that one may not complain of the invalidity of a statutory provision which does not affect him. This court will not determine the constitutionality of the provisions of an act which do not affect the parties to the cause under consideration, or where the party urging the invalidity of such provisions is not in any way aggrieved by their operation." (citation omitted)). به عنوان مثال، شخصی که مدعی مزایای خاصی است که توسط یک قانون ایجاد شده‌است، نمی‌تواند به دلایل قانون اساسی، مکانیسم اداری را که به آنها اعطا می‌کند به چالش بکشد."See, e.g.", "Ison v. W. Vegetable Distribs.", 59 P.2d 649, 655 (Ariz. 1936) ("It is the general rule of law that when a party invokes the benefit of a statute, he may not, in one and the same breath, claim a right granted by it and reject the terms upon which the right is granted."); "State ex rel. Sorensen v. S. Neb. Power Co.", 268 N.W. 284, 285 (Neb. 1936) ("[In this case,] defendants … invoked the statute, … relied upon and t[ook] advantage of it, and are now estopped to assail the statute as unconstitutional."). It is important not to read these too broadly. For example, in "In re Auditor Gen.", 266 N.W. 464 (Mich. 1936), certain property had been foreclosed upon for delinquent payment of taxes. A statute changed the terms by which foreclosure sales had to be published and announced in the community. The Michigan Supreme Court held that it was not necessary to question the validity of the "taxes" whose nonpayment led to the foreclosure, to have standing to question the validity of the "procedure" by which the foreclosure sale was being conducted. همین اصول در مورد نهادهای شرکتی اعمال می‌شود،"E.g.", "Am. Power & Light Co. v. SEC", 329 U.S. 90, 107 (1946) (a claim that the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 "is void in the absence of an express provision for notice and opportunity for hearing as to security holders regarding proceedings under that section [is groundless]. The short answer is that such a contention can be raised properly only by a security holder who has suffered injury due to lack of notice or opportunity for hearing. No security holder of that type is now before us. The management[] of American … admittedly w[as] notified and participated in the hearings … and … possess[es] no standing to assert the invalidity of that section from the viewpoint of the security holders' constitutional rights to notice and hearing"); "Virginian Ry. Co. v. Sys. Fed'n No. 40, Ry. Employees Dep't", 300 U.S. 515, 558 (1937) (under the Railway Labor Act, a "railroad can complain only of the infringement of its own constitutional immunity, not that of its employees" (citations omitted)). و می‌توانند دکترین فرسودگی راه‌حل‌ها را دخیل کنند."E.g.", "Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Davis", 301 U.S. 337, 353 (1937) ("Constitutional questions are not to be decided hypothetically. When particular facts control the decision they must be shown. Petitioner's contention as to impossibility of proof is premature ... For the present purpose it is sufficient to hold, and we do hold, that the petitioner may constitutionally be required to present all the pertinent facts in the prescribed administrative proceeding and may there raise, and ultimately may present for judicial review, any legal question which may arise as the facts are developed." (citation omitted)).