Reader Ross Farr responds to Why Is Rob McKenna Challenging ObamaCare?
You know what relic of the past needs to make a comeback? Quill pens.
"I read many spiteful posts condemning McKenna's actions as some form of a disservice to Washingtonians, but none of those commentators displays the courage to examine the core complaint that, IF true, should muster support from the whole population left and right.
"IF the bill is in violation of the Constitution, then the AG's filing suit are to be commended for having discovered the perfidy.
"If the bill is found to be Constitutional, then the AG's filing suit were performing a vital vetting function we all need.""I'm willing to bet big that those posting criticism for Mckenna's actions couldn't determine on their own whether the bill is Constitutional or not. I further suspect that these anti-lawsuit posters are probably less than concerned about following the Constitution so long as what results from Congress is in agreement with the posters own ideology.
"Everything I've read here indicates a dissatisfaction because McKenna's actions are inconsistent with Washingtonians' voting record, ignoring the question of Constitutionality. Whether we like the bill or not as Washingtonians, if it is unconstitutional, it must be repealed, period. The philosophy displayed by these negative posters (the ends justify the means) is fatal for a republic."