{"id":516575,"date":"2010-04-05T18:09:30","date_gmt":"2010-04-05T22:09:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/seattletimes.nwsource.com\/html\/northwestvoices\/2011531354_proandconhealthinsurancemandates.html?syndication=rss"},"modified":"2010-04-05T18:09:30","modified_gmt":"2010-04-05T22:09:30","slug":"pro-and-con-health-insurance-mandates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/516575","title":{"rendered":"Pro and con: health-insurance mandates"},"content":{"rendered":"

Who is the \u2018we\u2019?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I understand state AG Rob McKenna\u2019s predictable talking points espoused in his \u201ccon\u201d position. [\u201cSections of new law violate the Constitution,\u201d Opinion, April 4.]<\/p>\n

UW law professor Stewart Jay\u2019s reference to long-standing constitutional precedent and the law was substantive and most helpful. His comments on proper vetting and forums were also on point.<\/p>\n

But what I don\u2019t get in McKenna\u2019s piece is: Who is the \u201cWe\u201d in the \u201cWe are also concerned\u201d? It apparently did not include the governor, members of the Legislature and other state officers.<\/p>\n

The attorney general mentions his duty per his oath of office. His oath of office also requires him to abide by RCW 43.10.030; to wit: \u201cThe attorney general shall \u2026 consult with and advise the governor, members of the Legislature and other state officers and when requested, give written opinions upon all constitutional or legal questions relating to the duties of such officers.\u201d<\/p>\n

Seems clear and appropriate to me; it appears this did not happen.<\/p>\n

So, who is the \u201cwe\u201d and why? Also, why did McKenna not do his duty per RCW 43.10.030?<\/p>\n

I can answer those questions, but it would have been best had the attorney general been upfront and chosen to address this highly questionable aspect of his actions.<\/p>\n

His actions were transparent, purely partisan and constituted a violation of his oath of office. I would encourage him to correct my assessment of his questionable, unilateral initiative and fully disclose the untold portion of his story.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Dave Stromquist, Tacoma<\/em><\/p>\n

Law school professor\u2019s conclusion laughable<\/strong><\/p>\n

The commentary by Stewart Jay, UW Law School professor, argued \u201cNew health-reform law is definitely constitutional.\u201d<\/p>\n

His capacity for fair judgment was discredited by his laughable conclusion that, \u201cthe attorneys general … are asking unelected judges to stop a program that has been fully aired in the political process.\u201d On the contrary, the esteemed speaker of the House, while encouraging favorable votes, said the content of the bill will be learned after it is passed.<\/p>\n

His sense of validation for things \u201cfully aired in the political process\u201d should actually offer support for state AG Rob McKenna\u2019s position of responsibility for conducting the public\u2019s legal affairs, having endured very public exposure and endorsement of election processes.<\/p>\n

Finally, I have to wonder what is so feared from pursuit of a court decision over the health-reform law\u2019s validity if the supporters are so confident of its legality.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Bruce Martin, Bainbridge Island<\/em><\/p>\n

Jay shouldn\u2019t rely on precedent; McKenna moved by politics<\/strong><\/p>\n

Regarding the companion opinions of state AG Rob McKenna and law professor Stewart Jay, I have a problem with each.<\/p>\n

Since precedent means nothing to the current Supreme Court majority, Jay is wrong to rely on 70 years of precedent.<\/p>\n

McKenna is being disingenuous in claiming that he is bound to bring an action where there is an arguable violation of the Constitution. If that were true, he would have long ago brought charges against Bush administration war criminals and perjurers because the impact of their acts on Washington state were substantial.<\/p>\n

McKenna is simply motivated by politics. That is even clearer when one looks at the Washington State constitution and statutes that dictate the authorities of executive branch officers and the attorney general.<\/p>\n

\u2014 George Robison, Gig Harbor<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Who is the \u2018we\u2019? I understand state AG Rob McKenna\u2019s predictable talking points espoused in his \u201ccon\u201d position. [\u201cSections of new law violate the Constitution,\u201d Opinion, April 4.] UW law professor Stewart Jay\u2019s reference to long-standing constitutional precedent and the law was substantive and most helpful. His comments on proper vetting and forums were also […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2861,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-516575","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/516575","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2861"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=516575"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/516575\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=516575"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=516575"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=516575"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}