Those principles include a right to live free from undue interference by government; respect for an independent judiciary; and a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government.

"Terri's Law" violated all three principles, according to Judge W. Douglas Baird.

The law, passed hastily by the Legislature last October, reconnected a dying Terri Schiavo to the feeding tube that sustains her. The courts had ordered the tube removed, in accordance with what they repeatedly determined was "convincing" evidence that Terri would not have wanted to be kept alive artificially.

Her husband, Michael Schiavo, challenged the constitutionality of "Terri's Law." On Thursday, Baird agreed with him. Gov. Jeb Bush immediately appealed Baird's ruling, however, so resolution of the case remains months away.

In the meantime, Terri Schiavo lies in the helpless limbo she's endured for 14 years, too brain-damaged to swallow food or water. Her parents cling to the belief that she can be rehabilitated enough to survive without a feeding tube, but appellate judges who reviewed her case do not share that hope. They found that doctors had presented no credible evidence that therapy could help Terri become less dependent on the tube. Furthermore, CAT scans show that most of her cerebral cortex is gone, and her response to stimuli is too inconsistent to show "cognitive function," the judges concluded. At one point, an independent guardian proposed another set of tests to determine, with finality, whether swallow therapy would benefit Terri. But the family couldn't reach amicable terms for it.

Some people find "Terri's Law" comforting, because it spares her from death. But we find its implications absolutely chilling.

It violates Florida's constitutional right to privacy, which allows citizens -- not the government -- to decide the course of their own "end-stage" medical treatment.

It violates the system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches, because it delegates to the governor the power to reconnect Terri's feeding tube.

It violates statutes specifying that surviving spouses are empowered to decide such matters in the absence of an advance directive (Terri did not prepare one).

Most troubling of all, it violates the independence of the judiciary, substituting politics for objectivity. This is a dangerous precedent, no matter how well intended in the case of Terri Schiavo. Imagine legislators stepping in to overrule a murder defendant's acquittal; picture them reversing a negligence verdict unfavorable to a major campaign contributor. An independent judiciary is designed to protect society against such travesties.

Lawmakers and the governor -- who've sworn oaths to uphold the Florida Constitution -- should understand and respect the vital principles it contains.

If lawmakers believe that the state's right-to-die laws need reforms, they should initiate those changes in accordance with the constitution -- with adequate deliberation and public input.

"Terri's Law" doesn't meet that standard. Baird was right to strike it down.