Think of the distinction in this way: Prudential standing has to do with whether you are fighting your own battle or not. Constitutional standing has to do with the nature of your claim and whether its stated as a claim on which the court is able to afford relief. Rule 12(b)(1) v. Rule 12(b)(6). Big hairy deal - if you are not the right party, you're out. If you want the court to bring your grandmother back to life, you're out.http://deadlyclear.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/williamses-order.pdf
Vermont Trotter's explanation of the distinction between prudential standing and Constitutional standing is legally erroneous and shows that Vermont's understanding of the law is every bit as deficient as when he argued his case before the Idaho Supreme Court.
Article III Constitutional standing is a restraint upon the authority and power of United States (federal) courts. It is never a restraint upon the authority of state courts.
However, in many states there are similar state constitutional restraints upon the authority of state courts. These are often found in so-called open courts provisions of the state constitution. In those states where such restraints are in place and expressly recognized by the state's courts, standing is usually a constitutional imperative.
In those places where the state constitution lacks such a provision or where the courts have not found such a provision to operate as a restraint on judicial authority, the standing requirement is often found merely to be a rule rather than a constitutional restraint. Like other rules, such a rule can therefore be waived.
Mr. Roper has discussed this repeatedly in posts dating back to 2007.
The Rule 17 real party at interest requirement is a rule. In those places where the state constitution requires a justiciable controversy, a standing argument presents a challenge to the court's subject matter jurisdiction.
A real party at interest argument is always based upon a rule. EVERYWHERE.
Where standing is a constitutional imperative, the argument that a plaintiff lacks standing is a jurisdictional argument. Where standing is merely prudential -- based upon rules -- rather than constitutional, the court can look past the rule, based upon other competing and conflicting rules. The argument can also be waived when based upon the rules.
See Mr. Roper's excellent posts on this subject and disregard the erroneous material posted by this ignorant individual Vermont Trotter!