ADVERTISEMENT
Advertise Here

Spin Control

McKenna: Part of the checks and balances

OLYMPIA — Attorney General Rob McKenna was among the original plaintiffs challenging the Affordable Care Act and this morning defended the lawsuit, despite the loss, as part of the nation's “series of checks and balances”.

“While we’re disappointed that this close decision did not find in the states’ favor with regard to the individual mandate, the country benefits from a thoughtful debate about the reach of federal power into the legal rights of the states and the personal financial decisions of all Americans,” he said in a press release.

Other state officials who are Democrats were critical of McKenna for joining the lawsuit, and turned up the criticism when he said he was only challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate but the suit called for throwing out the entire law. It's a major bone of contention between McKenna and former U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee, the Democrat challenging McKenna for governor, who voted for the law when it was in Congress. So it's unlikely to be viewed as merely a way of testing the checks and balances by them.

To read the entire press release from McKenna, go inside the blog. 


OLYMPIA – Today the US Supreme Court upheld the 2010 Affordable Care Act. In a close decision, with multiple opinions, the Court ruled that the federal requirement to purchase health insurance—specifically a plan dictated by government regulators – does not violate the Constitution.

The states argued that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate commerce among the states but does not allow it to force Americans to engage in commerce. A majority of the Court agreed but the Court ultimately ruled that the mandate is constitutional under Congress’s taxing power.

“Our system of government provides a series of checks and balances, allowing new laws—especially ones that raise major constitutional questions—to be tested in court,” said Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna. “While we’re disappointed that this close decision did not find in the states’ favor with regard to the individual mandate, the country benefits from a thoughtful debate about the reach of federal power into the legal rights of the states and the personal financial decisions of all Americans.”

A majority of the Court also agreed with states’ argument that the federal government may not take away existing Medicaid funds from states that choose not to participate in the expansion of the Medicaid program.

“Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use,” the Court wrote. “What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.”


“Now the federal government must treat the states as equal partners, as both seek to provide health coverage for the poor,” said McKenna.

The case was brought by attorneys general of 26 states including Washington, along with the National Federation of Independent Business.


Please keep it civil. Don't post comments that are obscene, defamatory, threatening, off-topic, an infringement of copyright or an invasion of privacy. Read our forum standards and community guidelines.

You must be logged in to post comments. Please log in here or click the comment box below for options.

comments powered by Disqus
« Back to Spin Control

Get blog updates by email

About this blog

Jim Camden is a veteran political reporter for The Spokesman-Review.


Jonathan Brunt is an enterprise reporter for The Spokesman-Review.


Kip Hill is a general assignments reporter for The Spokesman-Review.

Nick Deshais covers Spokane City Hall for The Spokesman-Review.

Latest comments »

Read all the posts from recent conversations on Spin Control.

Search this blog
Subscribe to this blog
ADVERTISEMENT
Advertise Here