"Jeb would be upholding the law"
No .. he would not .. BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAS ALREADY RULED "NO" UNDER THE NEW LAW - you can't uphold the law by breaking it - I think you have a screwed up concept of how the law works.
Start studying the Constitution - it will help that concept.
Yes, he would be upholding the law. The law in question is the DCFS law that says that DCFS can take Terri out of there. The judge has ruled that they can't, but the judge cannot change the law. The judge is the one that is acting lawlessly here.
Jeb has the legislature on his side. They made the law. The judge has only himself.
If you want to get into the Constitution, well there's a subject you obviously haven't studied in some time. Otherwise you would know that Terri is also protected under the 5th, 7th and 8th amendments.
No person shall be deprived of life without due process. (5th amendment)
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed *twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, (7th amendment) Terri has not been afforded a trial by a jury of her peers.
*No one can argue that a life is worth less than $20.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. (8th Amendment)
Starving a person to death is cruel and unusual punishment, especially considering she has commited no crime.