(1) Despite the huge deficit in our national government as well as in most of the local governments, a trend to increase defense expenses and to decrease welfare expenses is continuing. Due to this, the constitution's "renunciation of war" clause is, in fact, disregarded; the "minimum standards of living" clause is losing ground; and generally our constitutional democracy is being corroded. Therefore, I believe that taxpayers (or citizens) should have more effective legal ways to control the fiscal activities of our national and local governments.
(2) Under the constitution fiscal democracy is the most important principle applicable to all government fiscal activities. A fiscal parliamentary rule derived from this principle has been historically very popular, but, in my view, it has not gone far enough. It should be emphasized that in the legal view the above fiscal democracy must ultimately contribute to secure procedurally the taxpayer's fundamental human rights, which I have proposed before, in legislative, administrative, and judicial processes.
(3) Discussing more effective judicial control of government fiscal activities, especially spending, we must develop a new concept of taxation which is linked to spending-i.e. collectively integrated revenue and spending. The protection of the taxpayer's fundamental human rights are based on this concept. According to this premise, when the government spends public money unconstitutionally or illegally, a taxpayer can say that his taxpayer's fundamental human rights have been violated, and standing should be awarded to challenge the government in a taxpayer's suit, classified as one of Lawsuits based on individual rights or interests. I will attempt to prove this taxpayer's standing, examining the constitutional limits of the government fiscal activities.
