body is not better situated to decide a constitutional issue and that an adversarial process such as this one is best developed in the circuit court. The problem with the Estate’s position is twofold. First, the Estate’s argument isolates the constitutional question and does not take into consideration that the tort claim, the genesis for its entire complaint, is one that falls within the exclusive province of the Commission. The Estate does not even challenge that the administrative body is best equipped for handling the claim stemming from Mauldin’s death. And, second, as CFS and Freeney point out, in sorder to challenge the constitutionality of the Act, the Estate must demonstrate that the Act applies to it. See Ark. Tobacco Control Bd. v. Sitton, 357 Ark. 357, 166 S.W.3d 550 (2004) (<HOLDING>). This court has held that the Commission has
holding that a litigant is not required to perform useless acts holding that a litigant must support an argument with legal authority holding a pro per litigant to the same standard as an attorney holding that a litigant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute if the law is unconstitutional as applied to that particular litigant holding that it is error to deny a jury trial once a litigant has properly requested same