so, we cited the Turner decision. One could argue by citing the Turner decision, we implicitly recognized the doctrine of great public importance and waived the standing requirement for state legislators to file an action contesting an item veto. Regardless of whether we previously recognized the doctrine of great public importance, I agree with the majority that we can and should be able to waive the standing requirement under the doctrine. I contend the proper circumstances to apply the doctrine occur in the exceptional case where a citizen claims a branch of government violated a provision of the Iowa Constitution that presents a clear threat to the essential nature of state government as guaranteed by the constitution. See Sears v. Hull, 192 Ariz. 65, 961 P.2d 1013, 1019 (1998) (<HOLDING>); see also State ex rel. Coll v. Johnson, 128
holding that such a threat would not supply exceptional circumstances holding that the exception is applied only in exceptional situations  recognizing that this special circumstances exception is very narrowly limited  and that only on rare occasions does a case present such circumstances holding the court should only apply the doctrine narrowly and only under exceptional circumstances holding in the absence of exceptional circumstances deference should be given to trial court