HAW HAW HAW! Now we really know you're reaching for thin air. That ban only applies to criminal law.
Creator God, our hearts are grieved at the knowledge that this precious child is consigned to days and nights without beauty or music or fellowship ... set aside behind closed doors, guarded as if she were the most heinous criminal, deserving of nothing. She has been abandoned, Lord ... cast out by a husband with murder in his heart. She has been abandoned, Lord ... held captive by an attorney who speaks eloquently of ending her life process. She has been forgotten, Lord ... the courts of law dismiss her as if she were not worthy of time or attention.
Our outrage knows no bounds. We praise Your name that You are the Righteous Judge, that You are the Avenger for all who are oppressed, that You require an accounting for every thought, word, and deed. We praise You for our standing before You through the Blood of Jesus Christ ... may Your Precious Blood be claimed by all those who wish Terri harm, else they cannot stand before You cleansed from all sin.
Again, Heavenly Father, we look to You for that one judge among the many ... that one judge who will render justice to this abandoned woman. Give supernatural strength to her family as they continually try to wrest their child from the grip of this evil ... break the chains that imprison her and set her free, O God, we pray in the Name of Jesus, Amen ...
“Now we really know you're reaching for thin air. That ban only applies to criminal law.”
Normally I might agree with you. However, the plain language of The Constitution does not make that distinction, it simply states that “[ n]o Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Traditionally the courts have held that this applied only to criminal law since civil law can and is enacted and modified as situation and circumstance change. Terri’s Law however goes beyond this and vacates a prior final decision of the judiciary that, in the Schiavo matter, denies her of a right previously held and affirmed by the court.
Interestingly, the Schlindlers used the ex post facto argument in a complaint asserting that the use of a 1999 Florida law in her case represented a Fifth Amendment due process violation of the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto legislation since Mrs. Schiavo had suffered her injury in 1990. The case was dismissed on other grounds and the ex post facto claim was never argued. Clearly even the legal champion of the Terri’s Fight organization recognizes that non-criminal legislation can constitute an ex post facto violation under The Constitution.
By way of example, let’s assume that the Hightechredneck family owned a piece of property in 1995 and had followed all the requirements necessary to validate and record their ownership. In 2000 the state legislature passed a law that required that the Governor sign all deeds at the time of recording or the deed is null and void. Further, that this new legislation was made retroactive to 1990. As a result of this new law the Hightechredneck’s property was condemned as vacant and declared an asset of the state. I admit that this example is overly exaggerated, simplistic, and extremely unlikely, but would this non-criminal ex post facto law be Constitutional?
The ex post facto argument is not the keystone that will cause Terri’s Law to be found unconstitutional. Several other factors considerations will carry the constitutionality question. It violates the Equal Protection Clause of both the State and Federal Constitutions, it violates the Separation of Power doctrine, it usurps the power of the judiciary, it is a Constitutionally prohibited Bill of Attainder and any number of other prohibited actions.
As I stated in my post, it's only my opinion.