What a thoughtful piece. It's nice to see a public servant communicate without hyperbole or misinformation.

Thank you, Attorney General McKenna, for stating the facts clearly and cogently, and for upholding the constitution.

I suggest people read Simon Lazarus' comprehensive analysis of the McKenna litigation to understand the potentially dire impact on civil rights laws and other cherished federal regulations if the Supreme Court upholds his challenge to the health care mandate.
http://www.acslaw.org/files/Lazarus%20-%20health%20reform%20lawsuits.pdf
As former Massachusetts Republican Governor Mitt Romney noted when signing that state's health care reform law containing an individual mandate to buy health insurance: "[S]omeone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on the government is not libertarian."
Mr. McKenna refers to the government controlling people's health care choices. But in fact the new health insurance exchanges starting in 2014 will give Americans an unprecedented array of private health insurance choices, similar to those available to members of Congress and federal employees. For Mr. McKenna to call this "government-controlled" health care is, to put it charitably, inaccurate.

What a whiner! "insidious" this and "demagoguery" that. This is not looking very gubernatorial, Rob...

Look, everyone knows that this health care bill will not work without a mandate. If you take away the mandate, the whole thing falls apart. People would just wait until they get sick, then go buy insurance. Make no mistake--Rob is out to dismantle the whole thing.

There is another federal mandate that requires hospital emergency rooms to not turn away emergency cases. This is the current way for many uninsured to get medical care, paid for by tax payers and higher insurance rates. Why don't you go after that federal mandate, Rob? This would achieve the Libertarian/Scroogian dream of having the poor die in the streets to decrease the surplus population.

While the column is interesting from a legal standpoint..it does not solve the 'moral' problem that we are facing with a for profit health care system. How do we ensure that everyone has access to a doctor and medical care without resorting to an emergency room? We have a for-profit health care system (even our non-profits act like for profits). Without everyone buying insurance, it is not profitable to insure the sick, the middle-aged and elderly. So for profit companies will continue to try to insure only those who are healthy. Those people with pre-existing conditions, and those with expensive diseases (think Cancer patients that have been dropped) won't get insured or will continue to lose their insurance. The Constitution is important, but so is the right to see a doctor. Insurance exchanges, tort reform, etc., is only a minor fix. Profit motive is profit motive. And we should have all learned from the Wall Street debacle that at times free market capitalism only serves a small percentage of people. Again, while Mr. McKenna's views are interesting he doesn't solve the biggest health insurance problem of all.. access to health care..and most importantly, access to affordable health care.

Leah, I like your points but most constitutional scholars (and so far three federal district judges, which AG McKenna skipped over) see no contradiction between our Constitution and the health reform law's requirement that everyone obtain health insurance. This falls under the Constitutional provision that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce; the health insurance industry is surely interstate commerce. McKenna's argument that this could give the government the power to order Americans to do almost anything (Judge Vinson actually said it could lead to requiring people to eat broccoli or join a health club) is ludicrous, both legally and politically. Check out the Lazarus analysis I linked to and see what you think.

The health care mandate was an unprecedented expansion of Commerce Clause authority -- prior to 1932. For better or worse, since the New Deal this kind of expansive usage has been rather common. It looks to me like the Choir Boy is looking for a safe pew to hide under.

It would be one thing if the mandate applied equally to everyone, but deals have been cut to exempt the usual suspects (unions, tribes, etc). If Congress cannot treat people equally under the law, the law is no good.

Rob, you aren't going to be governor of Washington with an attitude like this.

You can whine all you want about the lack of constitutional mandate for buying health care, but it comes across as self serving of your Republican base when you also ignore the laws for Fraud in the Mortgage Backed Security Cases. (ie foreclosing without actually holding title to the property, failing to register title transfers with the county instead relying on MERS, an illegal entity. The lack of any titles in a Mortgage backed Security bond, the under oath testimony of Citi-Bank that they knew those securities were worthless. Washington State owned some of those I bet, we the WA tax payers have been defrauded.)

How about the lack of constitutional protection for the detainees in GITMO? The torture of Private Bradley? The torture of the detainees in GITMO? Why not prosecute the last administration for war crimes?

Those things are much more serious infringements on our rights.

You can't have it both ways, either you are going to enforce all the laws fairly and look like an Attorney General, or you can pander to your party and enforce only the ones that don't convict any of your party donors.

Gary P - read your state constitution. In the state of Washington, the Attorney General has no authority to investigate or prosecute crimes. He can only do so when asked to do so by a county prosecutor, typically when the county prosecutor has a conflict of interest. The points you make in your post are wholly inapposite.

You may not agree with Atty Gen McKenna's interpretation of the U.S. constitution, but he certainly has the authority to protect the state's interest in a civil suit. The federal courts will determine whether your reading of the U.S. constitution or Atty Gen McKenna's is correct.

PJS,

Well then since WA Attorney Generals can't investigate crimes, what is the 50th state in this group?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/realestate/2013164472_realinquiry17.html

Seems Mr. McKenna can pick and choose which crimes to investigate.

As for Mr. McKenna protecting the interests of WA residents, I think that the crimes committed by the banks and the fraud in the selling of MBS bonds is well within his rights. But then he'd be prosecuting Republican party donors.

http://www.atg.wa.gov/FinancialCrimes.aspx

I'd say that failing to investigate the lack of title transfers and payment of fees is a crime against WA state.

http://www.atg.wa.gov/SafeguardingConsumers.aspx
I'd say that failing to have any actual mortgage titles in a MBS is fraud. And therefore a violation of the consumer protection acts of WA.

Rob's show himself to be a tool of the party and it will be his last term in office in WA state.

GaryP - you point to civil investigations and, with respect to financial crimes, investigation power only, NOT to prosecution power.

Are you suggesting that all Washington state prosecutors, Democrat and Republican, are colluding to not charge these fraudsters? What about Democrat attorney generals in other states?

Would someone tell how marijuana can be illegal at the federal level? Is it the commerce clause?

BlueLight, unionized workers certainly are subject to the health reform law's mandate. I don't know where you got that. There are only a few limited exceptions, including native Americans (who I presume are covered by the Indian Health Service), people with certain narrow religious exemptions, and people who fall under the income threshhold but aren't poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Unionized workers and other people who have health coverage through their employers satisfy the mandate in that way and can stick with their current coverage.

There are now over 1,000 organizations covering 2.6 Million people who are waivered from confoming with the HCR. Yes, many of them are UNION members.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/147715-number-of-healthcare-reform-law-waivers-climbs-above-1000

Here is the list as of 1/26/2011 directly from HHS. You will note a number of unions. As cited in the article above an additional 300 waivers have been granted since the offical list upgrade on this link.

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

Geez, Cameron, those waivers have nothing to do with enforcement of the individual mandate to buy coverage. Those are waivers demanded by companies to allow them to continue offering benefit plans with minimal benefits (known as mini-meds), and those waivers will only apply until 2014, when the mandate and federal subsidies to help people buy coverage kick in. That's what the HHS link you helpfully provided says if you read it. All the people covered under these plans receiving waivers will be subject to the individual mandate in 2014. This is why it's so difficult to have a rational discussion about the health reform law. There is so much misinformation and disinformation and misunderstanding about it.

BTW, I hope folks read the Seattle Stranger's good piece about Rob McKenna, particularly the part about how he hasn't been straight with the public that his lawsuit seeks to invalidate the entire health care law, including the popular parts like ending pre-existing condition exclusions, allowing young people to stay on their parents' insurance plan, filling in the prescription coverage donut hole for seniors, etc. He insists in his Crosscut article and other public presentations that he wants to keep those good parts and just strike down the mandate, but that's not what his lawsuit says.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/could-washington-be-the-next-wisconsin/Content?oid=6987101

PJS,

"Are you suggesting that all Washington state prosecutors, Democrat and Republican, are colluding to not charge these fraudsters? What about Democrat attorney generals in other states?"

Sure looks that way to me. Although NY has charged some of them. Arizona has been passing laws that require full documentation before foreclosure. But WA has done nothing to address the fraud. And the head of the WA legal representation is off chasing health care ghosts.

They would never extend the Waivers would they Harris?

Thanks GaryP. I love conspiracy theories. It makes their promulgators look so rational. What other conspiracies trouble you?

Here's what the AG is doing re foreclosure problems. Real-world problem solving, not grandstanding like Spitzer and Cuomo did when trying to prosecute people for so-called crimes, only to see charges thrown out of court after innocent people were forced to do perp walks in front of tv cameras.

http://atg.wa.gov/foreclosure.aspx#PROBLEMS

Re: the mandate issue, apparently AG McKenna hasn't heard of mandatory automobile insurance or paying for car insurance within the price of gasoline. If we allow people to opt out, chances are the healthiest folks will, while the remainder will pay higher rates. Next point: only a fool believes that "consensus" doesn't mean that the big business lobbyists that support all politicians and especially Republicans won't skew what comes out towards the well-off folks. All one has to do is look at the tax code and the growing number of millionaires and billionaires in this country, who the politicians jealously guard - after all, most of them are millionaires - and whom seem to have an insatiable appetite for more and more money and tangible possessions. To think that the public could comprehend the complexity of health care is ludicrous. Also, people in general don't like change. I worked in a hospital in a department solely concerned with data. Imagine the number of health care coverages: what's covered and not, all of the thousands of procedure codes (look up CPT-4 codes to get a start), various deductibles, co-pays, annual limits, maximum limits, etc. Rather than simplify this system, the politicians - who all have gold-plated coverage that bypasses the snafus that the rest of us, even those with coverage, have - fight to protect it. The Rs would rather folks without coverage put it off until it's an emergency, then use the emergency rooms. Ever wonder why the co-pay for the ER is way more than an office visit? Yet, incorporating "best practices" to save costs and simplifying the coverage and breadth of regional health care is beyond the propagandizing of the politicians. Medicare is going broke, let's get off the fence and start serious fixing of the nation's biggest fiscal problem: health care.