[TonyInOhio]

A short and cogent answer from The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal:

Think of an analogy to the writ of habeas corpus. As John Eastman of the Claremont Institute points out, "We have federal court review of state court judgments all the time in the criminal law context." The bill before Congress essentially treats the Florida judgment as a death sentence, warranting federal habeas review. Mrs. Schiavo is not on life support. The court order to remove the feeding tube is an order to starve her to death. Moreover, Mrs. Schiavo is arguably being deprived of her life without due process of law, a violation of the 14th Amendment that Congress has the power to address.

The whole article is worth a read.

[Wolfstar]

The argument that Congress essentially treates the Florida judgement as a death sentence warranting federal habeas review is a good one. Again, if Congress had written the bill more broadly to apply to all similar cases, I think they would be on stronger Constitutional ground. If the case does wind its way back to the Supreme Court, we shall see which point of view stands. For now, though, I think because Congress wrote their bill narrowly to apply to Mrs. Schiavo's parents, they are on shakey Constitutional ground.

[MarMema]

Can you post it?

[expatguy]

The bill before Congress essentially treats the Florida judgment as a death sentence, warranting federal habeas review. Mrs. Schiavo is NOT on life support. The court order to remove the feeding tube is in essence an order to starve her to death.

I believe starving and dehydrating an individual to death would be considered "cruel and unusual" and torturous punishment.

Of course torture is forbidden under our constitution.