454 U.S. at 487; 102 S.Ct. at 766-767.
Similarly, Newdow cannot "channel surf" searching for governmental wrongdoing.  Certainly, given the broad reach of cable television, viewers have access to all sorts of televised government activities such as city council meetings.  But does this mean that Mewdow, who upon watching cable TV from his home in Sacramento observes the city council in Omaha, Nebraska, recite the Pledge of Allegiance to open a public meeting, could thereafter file a lawsuit in Sacramento, California, challenging this conduct on Establishment Clause grounds?  Could Newdow file an action in Sacramento after hearing the President of the United States, speaking from Washington, D.C., conclude the State of the
j
Union address with the words "God Bless America"?  Newdow would undoubtedly believe both of these examples are constitutional violations, but defendant knows of no case that has defined standing in such broad terms that one who merely views allegedly unconstitutional conduct on television can file suit in the district where he resides.
No matter how Newdow tries to satisfy the standing requirement by vigorously asserting how offended he was or how the prayer made him feel like an outsider, the fact remains that Newdow alleges nothing more than a generalized complaint that Rev. Graham's prayer violated the Establishment Clause. He and every other atheist and non-Christian in the United States probably have the same complaint.  However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly "rejected claims of standing predicated on 'the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be
4