More Constitutional Questions From the Schiavo Case

The deeper we wade into this matter, the messier it gets.

The language of "Terri's Bill" orders that a Federal judge must review the Terri Schiavo case from the ground up. Must? When exactly did the separation of powers come to mean that the legislative branch of government could order the judicial branch to undertake any specific action or do so in a specific manner?

At the very least, congress, this is constitutional strike two.

Then we have the matter of allegations raised that Michael Schiavo might have abused his wife and that this is the reason he wants to kill her and clean up the evidence. Accept purely for the sake of argument that this allegation is fact. If Terri's Bill prevails, and if as a result her life is preserved/cessation of non-death functions is prevented, and if as a then further result evidence is obtained that is used to convict Michael Schiavo of abuse or any other criminal act, does he get a free pass because the evidence against him was obtained through a premeditated series of unconstitutional actions?

Regardless of what the presumed good intentions are, one, or many, must always beware the law of unintended consequences.