The confrontation became personal and legal, with members of Congress hurling insults and threats at judges who wouldn't order Schiavo fed. As recently as Thursday, one House leader raised the specter of impeachment.

Although Schiavo's family may never heal its rift, experts in constitutional law say the country's legal system remains solidly intact, that Schiavo's legacy may be more evident in our culture than in our system of government.

``There's no damage done to the system,'' said Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School. ``We have a constitutional system that was built for bad weather, not good weather. ... Once again, it has proven it can actually function with two dysfunctional branches.''

Turley said he sympathized with Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, because he recently went through a similar situation, choosing to leave his father on life support.

``Despite my agreement with the Schindlers, we remain a country of laws,'' Turley said. ``We are not allowed within our Constitution to disregard our constitutional principles when they are inconvenient.''

Schiavo died Thursday, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed on the order of Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer. She had been in what many doctors have called a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. Her husband, Michael, successfully petitioned in state court seven years ago to have the tube removed on the grounds that she would not have wanted to live that way. Her parents have disputed that claim and fought to keep her alive.

State, Federal Laws Written

The battle provoked legislators sympathetic to the Schindlers to adopt two laws, one by the state and the other by the federal government. The state law was ultimately overturned by the Florida Supreme Court. More recently, Gov. Jeb Bush tried unsuccessfully to have state officials take custody of Schiavo, but Greer ordered them not to, and the governor backed down.

The federal law - passed in an extraordinary session and signed into law when President Bush cut short his vacation on March 21 - gave federal courts jurisdiction to review the case. But federal judges refused to order Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted because they concluded the Schindlers had not proved they would probably be able to prove their daughter's rights were violated in state courts. One federal appeals judge, Stanley F. Birch Jr., wrote an opinion in which he concluded the Schiavo law was unconstitutional.

Three days before the law passed, the U.S. Senate health committee tried to prevent the removal of the feeding tube by subpoenaing Terri Schiavo. The tactic failed when Greer refused to change his order.

``In some ways, this case reaffirms the brilliance of the Madisonian democracy,'' Turley said. ``Two of the three branches [of government] failed to carry out their responsibilities. ... In this case, both the legislative and executive branch exceeded their authority, but the system continued to function with one branch, the judicial branch, holding the line.''

As the chief attorney for Liberty Counsel, a conservative civil rights organization, Matthew D. Staver filed a friend- of-the-court brief in support of the Schindlers in the federal proceedings.

Staver believes the case should motivate state legislators to consider adopting laws barring the removal of life support in cases where patients have not expressed their wishes in writing and where there is a dispute among family members about the patients' wishes. Staver also maintains that the law should disqualify a legal guardian who has a conflict.

Paul F. Rothstein, of Georgetown University Law Center, said the case may lead a lot of states to ``scramble around to clarify their statutes, their laws on what to do in a situation like Terri Schiavo was in.''

Congress May Be Emboldened

Rothstein said he thinks the Schiavo experience has damaged the constitutional separation of powers. ``I think it removes a brick from the wall,'' he said. ``I'm not 100 percent sure it will totally recover.''

Rothstein said Congress may be emboldened by this case to try to pass laws designed to affect individual court cases, more often than it has tried this in the past. ``Congress sort of feels its muscle here,'' he said. ``Nobody took them to task here,'' except for Birch, whose opinion had no force of law because it was filed merely in concurrence with a procedural ruling.

Birch, who was appointed to the bench in 1990 by the former President Bush, suggested in his opinion that Congress had acted in hubris, accusing the body of ``arrogating vital judicial functions to itself.''

Staver, who disagreed with Birch's opinion, said the American system of government has emerged from the Schiavo case unscathed. ``There have been times throughout our history where we've had these struggles between different branches of government,'' he said. ``Time has ultimately healed these collisions. I think in the long scheme of things, this will not harm our separation of powers.''

Calls For Judicial Reform

Staver said he has long believed in the need for judicial reform, and that belief has not been affected by the Schiavo case. He said the case may give more fuel to reformers. Depending on how that fight turns out, the judiciary could emerge hobbled or strengthened, he said.

Reacting to Schiavo's death, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said, ``This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change.''

Speaking with reporters later in Houston, the Texas Republican said lawmakers ``will look at an arrogant and out-of- control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president.''

Asked if that included the possibility of the House bringing impeachment charges against judges involved in the Schiavo case, DeLay said, ``There's plenty of time to look into that.''

White House press secretary Scott McClellan declined to sign on to judicial criticism. ``We would have preferred a different decision from the courts ... but ultimately we have to follow our laws and abide by the courts,'' he said.

Erwin Chemerinsky, professor at Duke Law School, said DeLay's comments were ``outrageous.'' If legislators tried to impeach judges as a result of this case, it would pose ``a grave threat to separation of powers,'' he said.

But, Chemerinsky added, ``I don't think it's going to go anywhere.'' Chemerinsky noted that many of the most prominent critics of Congress, including Judge Birch, are conservatives. ``It's real hard for someone like Tom DeLay to say it's just the liberal judges.''

Chemerinsky agreed with others that the case didn't do any damage to the system of government. ``A system that's existing for this long isn't easily changed by any single event,'' he said.

``In our constitutional history, I don't think this has any lasting significance,'' Chemerinsky added. ``In our cultural and popular history, it may have more lasting significance.''

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.