fails to have the adverse interest necessary for standing and is not the proper party to assert the instant constitutional challenge. See Valley Forge Christian Coll., 454 U.S. at 473, 102 S.Ct. 752 (stating that a party must allege facts showing that he or she has been adversely affected); Congress of Indus. Orgs. v. McAdory, 325 U.S. 472, 475, 65 S.Ct. 1395, 89 L.Ed. 1741 (1945) (stating that the Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation when the party bringing the suit cannot assert antagonistic rights); State v. Benitez, 395 So.2d 514, 517 (Fla.1981) (stating that a party cannot challenge a statutory enactment that does not adversely affect that party’s personal or property rights); Chamberlin v. Dade County Bd. of Pub. Instruction, 171 So.2d 535, 537 (Fla.1965) (<HOLDING>); Alachua County v. Scharps, 855 So.2d 195, 201
holding that a federallyfunded program in which public school teachers provided remedial education to disadvantaged children in parochial schools as well as public schools did not violate the establishment clause holding that the challenged practices were not consumeroriented under  349 because they were directed only at prospective insurance agents holding that plaintiffs had standing because they were directly affected by the laws and practices against which their complaints were directed holding that parents who brought suit challenging certain religiouslyrelated practices in public schools were without standing to challenge religious practices at baccalaureate programs because their children who were enrolled in elementary schools were not adversely affected by the challenged practice holding that the unilateral placement of a student by the parents in an unapproved school is not by itself a bar to tuition reimbursement but public schools may not place students in unapproved schools