Anyway, I was referring to the link/entry:
"<http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32405acluopp.pdf>Michael Schiavo's Opposition to application by Terri
Schiavo's parents (March 24, 2005)"
Incidentally, though (for very good judge/lawyer reasons) all posit the law's constitutionality arguendo, it is worth reading district Judge Whittemore's and the 11th circuit's three-judge panel's March 23, 2005 majority opinion as models of judicial clarity and also because of the barely concealed tongue-in-cheek "judgelike" (but only slightly elliptical) way the 11th circuit's two judge marority (like Judge Whittemore) stick to Congress and general and to Frist in particular for their hypocrisy in trying to portray the federal law passed earlier in this week as more than it was.
(Indeed, the exchange they quote between Sens. Levin and Frist, insufficently reported in the press, seems very strongly to suggest a probably "untold story" element of this near hysterical mini-mellodrama -- namely, that it indicates an off-the-record deal between the Frist group and others in the senate that Frist knew and also tacitly agreed from the outset that the statute was basically a bullshit procedural exercise. Even so, it is a pleasant surprise that the federal district judge and an apparent substantial majority on the appeals and, later, of the Supremes actually did their jobs yet pathetic that, these days, one is greatful if a judge actually does what he or she is supposed to do.)
=========================================
On 3/26/05, snitsnat <snitilicious at tampabay.rr.com> asked:
Which document do yu want us to read? There are at least 40 links in that center column alone. Do we get, like, a clue or do we have to discern it. I searched on the most likely candidates in your para -- ACLU, public Law, Pub., and brief -- no joy.
>Those interested in the "constitutional ins and outs" might want to read
>the brief submitted by Michael Schiavo's attorneys and the ACLU in
>opposition to the Schindlers' lawsuit, which (especially at pp. 34-46)
>summarizes their arguments why Pub. Law. 109-3 (the statute "For the
>relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo" passed last week under
>color of which the federal litigation has been conducted) is unconstitutional.
>
>Among the on line sources for this purpose is:
>
> http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/schiavo/index.html