reproach" from a particular prayer given by the Senate Chaplain. Id. ^ 90-93. Third, plaintiff alleges that he will be discriminated against because of his religious beliefs in consideration of his "application" for the office of Senate or House Chaplain. Id. ^ 72-80. Because none of these allegations of harm satisfies the prerequisites for Article ffl standing, the Court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs Article VI claims and those claims must be dismissed. Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 475-76 ("Those who do not possess Art. ffl standing may not litigate as suitors in the courts of the United States."); Florida Audubon Soc., 94 F.3d at 661-62 ("A party that fails to demonstrate any of these prerequisites cannot seek relief from the federal judiciary.").
1.     Plaintiff's Alleged Harm as a Taxpayer Is Insufficient to Establish Standing to Raise Article VI Claims.
The general rule governing taxpayer standing was established in Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), where the Supreme Court held that the expenditure of public funds in an allegedly unconstitutional manner is not an injury sufficient to confer Article ffl standing on a taxpayer to challenge the expenditure. Subsequently, the Court in Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968), recognized a narrow exception to that general rule. Flast held that a taxpayer could demonstrate a sufficient injury to have standing to maintain a suit where two conditions are met. First, the taxpayer must challenge the constitutionality of "exercises of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Art. I, § 8, of the Constitution." Flast, 392 U.S. at 102. Second, "the taxpayer must show that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of the congressional taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, § 8." Id. at 102-03. See also United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 173 (1974). Plaintiffs allegations of harm fail to meet either prong with regard to his Article VI claims.
-18-