has also drawn the line at “abstract” claims. In particular, the Court has consistently rejected standing based on the general interest of a litigant in having government act pursuant to the law. Allen, 468 U.S. at 754, 104 S.Ct. at 3326, 82 L.Ed.2d at 571 (denying standing to bring a claim for an “ ‘abstract injury in nonobservance of the Constitution’ ’’(quoting Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S, 208, 223 n. 13, 94 S.Ct. 2925, 2933 n. 13, 41 L.Ed.2d 706, 720 n. 13 (1974))). Such claims present only a generalized grievance because “ ‘all citizens [have an interest] in constitutional governance.’ ” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 160, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 1725, 109 L.Ed.2d 135, 148 (1990) (quoting Schlesinger, 418 U.S. at 217, 94 S.Ct. at 2930, 41 L.Ed.2d at 716) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, psychological and mental injuries
holding that execution of the mentally retarded is prohibited under the eighth amendment to the united states constitution holding that the eighth amendment to the united states constitution prohibits the execution of mentally retarded individuals holding creditors who obtained judgment subsequent to corporations execution of mortgage had no right to challenge mortgages execution holding citizen had no standing to bring an eighth amendment challenge to the execution of another person because the lawsuit only alleged a general interest in government acting in compliance with the constitution holding that under the eighth amendment to the united states constitution the government may not execute a mentally retarded person