Ridiculous assertion. That's not what Keyes says, and if you have fifth grade reading comprehension skills, you know it.
If Keyes' argument was worth the effort, I'd explain why his legal analysis of the governor's authority is bogus.
In other words, you don't have a counter to his clear and concise argument.
Can you explicitly explain to me why Article One, Section Two, does not apply to Terri Schiavo?
Because if she is a PERSON, it must.
Alright, here's what he said once again:
Since Florida's highest law grants him supreme executive power, the governor's action would be lawful. No one in the Florida judiciary can say otherwise, since the whole basis for the doctrine of judicial review (which they invoked when they refused to apply "Terri's law") is that any law at variance with the constitution is no law at all.
That's it: Supreme executive authority = lawful. And no judge can challenge any exercise of his executive authority because that authority comes from the constitution, which is the supreme legal authority.
If you don't think that's what Keyes meant, then I'd be happy to consider an alternative explanation for his remarks. Again, focusing not specifically on the Schiavo case, but on Keyes' interpretation on the limitations of executive authority in general.
In other words, you don't have a counter to his clear and concise argument.
No. In other words, I don't care to waste my time writing a mini-brief on a legal analysis of the Florida Constitution. Why should I?
Can you explicitly explain to me why Article One, Section Two, does not apply to Terri Schiavo?
Yes, I could. I've done it elsewhere. But no, I won't, because I really don't have any interest in making that argument again. I was addressing Keyes' incredibly overbroad description of executive authority, not Terri Schiavo.
But I will say this. Under Keyes' point, whether Article One, Section Two actually applies to Terri Schiavo does not matter, because the only thing that matters is whether the governor asserts that it does. The governor's claim that a right is being violated is enough to justify the governor's exercize of the police power.