There is no violation of federal law here. No federal law forces the maintenance of hopeless medical cases which, at any given time, number in the thousands. These are decisions made everyday without little comment.
Terri is not "disabled" under any rational meaning of the term. This is one of the most egregious lies told by the pack of opportunists. She is FAR beyond being merely disabled.
Nor is there any question of "due process" except in the minds of those who refuse to face facts. Her case has consumed thousands of hours of judicial time and millions of dollars of medical costs. She has received FAR more from the taxpayers and legal system than probably 99% of those in similiar situations. To pretend that there has not been due process is a clear indication of lack of integrity and refusal to tell the truth.
Anyone familiar with the Constitution will not argue that Congress does not have the power to do what it has done or that it does not have the power to pass bills affecting an individual. It does. I think it a horrible example of political wisdom but it was within its power. Now it can do no more. However, dragging a near corpse before a committee of gladhanders and grandstanders is one of the most revolting acts Congress has performed and it is the stuff of satire. The supoenas were ignored because no one could possibly take them seriously. What will it do next supoena someone in the morgue?
Your understanding of the meaning of the mandated review is not in keeping with legal concept, de novo, and in no way requires the District Court to start proceedings from day one. But trying to tell this to people who know more about the law than judges, more about murder than the cops and more about medicine than doctors is fruitless. After all they stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
All your fantasies are less than persuasive and do not change the fact that the President has NO authority to do more than what he has already done. At least not in a country higher than a Banana republic.
Are you licensed to practice law?
While not agreeing or disagreeing on whether 'due process' was followed, I think your statement here is irrelevant. We should not be measuring 'due process' in terms of man-hours or dollars spent on a case. It may take only a few days, or a few years, or it may take more. Likewise, due process is not necessarily met merely by reaching some pre-determined monetary limit.
After a quick online search for the legal definition of 'disable' I came up with the following link:
http://www.mediate.com/articles/blankK1.cfm
The key sentence is "There, in the world’s foremost law dictionary, a disabled person is defined as one who by virtue of his or her impairment is “disabled from acting on his or her behalf."
I'm sure there's a better definition someplace. I'll check my Black's Law Dictionary when I get home.