State Attorney General Rob McKenna issued the following statement in response to the lawsuit filed yesterday by Commissioner of Public Lands Peter Goldmark:
“The Constitution, state law and case law interpreting the powers and duties of the Attorney General affirm that the AG is more than just a passive observer of state agency action and grant this office authority to determine whether or not to appeal cases of interest to the state,” McKenna said.
Huh. Really? “The Constitution, state law and case law” all support McKenna’s claim to broad discretionary powers. I look forward to McKenna’s brief, and reading how he backs up this assertion.
Because the Constitution affirms absolutely nothing except that “The attorney general shall be the legal adviser of the state officers, and shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law.” There is no other mention in the Constitution about the AG’s powers and duties.
As for state law, we’ve already gone over that exhaustively, and I don’t see anything in there explicitly giving the AG’s office the authority to determine whether or not to appeal cases against the wishes of his client. I see RCW 43.12.075 defining a traditional attorney-client relationship between the AG and the Commissioner of Public Lands, mandating that it shall be the AG’s duty to defend the Commissioner when requested so to do, and explicitly stating that it is the Commissioner who represents the state in any proceedings relating to public land. But I see nothing in state law granting McKenna the broad powers he claims.
As for case law, well, I’ve already admitted that there is some case law on both sides of this argument, although absolutely nothing directly to this point in Washington state, as none of McKenna’s predecessors has ever stubbornly pushed such a dispute this far. I believe the case law I’ve previously discussed is pretty damn persuasive that the AG does not have the authority McKenna claims, but this will ultimately be decided in court.
So while the jury remains out on whether case law supports his claim, McKenna is clearly blowing smoke out his ass when he tells the media that both Constitution and state law support give him such authority. They don’t. He does not point to a single line in either to support his claim, because he can’t.
And the media should remember this kinda disrespect before credulously reporting McKenna’s comments in the future.
A blatantly crass move that puts RM’s political future in the hands of that famous group known as “some of the people…” who “…can be fooled all of the time.” Good luck with that one Bobby. 150 years, and it hasn’t worked yet.
Goldy, if you are making the argument that the AG can only act at the behest of state officials and not in whatever perception of “the public interest” would that reasoning not also apply to McKenna’s joining the lawsuit against the health insurance bill? That seems to encroach on setting policy as well. Just wondering, as I think there are other arguments against the health insurance lawsuit as well.
Tlazolteotl @2,
In fact, I’m working on a post that makes that exact argument.
McKenna is sending a message that when he is Governor, he will adopt the broadest possible interpretations of his power. Republicans love that stuff. Democrats are about governing. Republicans are about gaining power and using it to their own advantage, and to further advantage the privileged class.
I’ve been trying to think up arguments that McKenna can use on his behalf. The only one I can come up with is the speculation that the “original intent” of having the AG be the sole legal representative of the State and it’s officers and agents was to allow it to avoid having different state agencies taking different positions in court regarding the public policy of the state. But that’s a pretty weak argument, relying upon speculation regarding original intent.
I’m wondering if McKenna would think any differently if the City of Olympia exercised immenent domain over his office space. Same principle, isn’t it?
This mornings Tacoma paper has a story about a pimp for Jesus that wanders around the Tacoma Mall. Nothing about this, though.
Goldy, I haven’t commented much on this series of posts. I have enjoyed and learned from them and the comment threads (Roger, rhp, proud leftist, etc., etc.).
Anyway I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate you and the immense effort these required (and the erudite HA community).
3rd offer: If you send a mailing address to my email, I’ll send you a check.
@6: The Kitsap SUN poated an AP story yesterday, here:
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/.....s-help-in/
Because the Constitution affirms absolutely nothing except that “The attorney general shall be the legal adviser of the state officers, and shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law.”
Well, the potential problem here is that “shall” sometimes can mean “may,” and even though we’re not a common law state we sometimes can be, and the law is an ass, and all that.
Anyone wanna bet how BIAW Subsidiary Jim Johnson will vote in this case? Sanders, though, will say the state constitution says what it actually says.
@9) That explains a lot of things regarding Republicans. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” actually means “Thou may or may not commit adultery, it’s your call”.
shalt [shalt] Show IPA
–verb Archaic .
2nd pers. sing. of shall.
Hopefully a lot of people trumpet his inability to follow state law when he is running his failing gubernatorial campaign. It will be great to watch him backpedal on this.