an ex post facto challenge to the Act); Ellis v. State, 762 So.2d 912 (Fla.2000) (recognizing that, “[a]s to notice, publication in the Laws of Florida or the Florida Statutes gives all citizens constructive notice of the consequences of their actions”) (quoting State v. Beasley, 580 So.2d 139, 142 (Fla.1991)); State v. Cotton, 769 So.2d 345 (Fla.2000) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the decision in Miller is
holding that the act violates neither separation of powers nor principles of due process by allowing a victim veto that precludes application of the act as well as holding that the act is not void for vagueness and does not constitute a form of cruel or unusual punishment holding that adam walsh act does not violate procedural due process require excessive bail or violate separation of powers holding that the act does not violate separation of powers is not void for vagueness and does not violate principles of due process by allowing a victim veto precluding application of the act holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding that  1915g does not violate a prisoners right to access the courts separation of powers due process or equal protection