Just look up standing, for instance.
Other countries have very open interpretations of standing. A plaintiff hoping to demonstrate that a statute or action is unconstitutional doesn't have to demonstrate direct connection to real harm. It is presumed that everyone is interested in the constitution being followed.
Used to be that way here. But that changed in the 1920s.
You can go a little earlier, 1902, where the court ruled that there was a protected but unenumerated liberty called the "freedom of contract" and that even a duly passed state law was not the "due process of law" mentioned in the 5th and 14th amendments. Which might not have been a big deal except for the fact that states and the federal government had been regulating contracts throughout American history up to that point.

---