Democrats have blasted Attorney General Rob McKenna this week for joining a 13-state lawsuit that aims to overturn the newly inked health-care reform bill.

At issue is whether the federal government can force all Americans to purchase health insurance or face penalties.

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the bill, saying it implies virtually limitless powers for the federal government through its constitutional authority over interstate commerce.

Supporters of the health-care bill say the suit would strip families of a legal right to insurance.

Gov. Chris Gregoire said she will actively oppose the lawsuit, and Democrats in the state legislature are talking about ways to block McKenna from spending state money on the case.

The Seattle City Council even passed a resolution suggesting the attorney general needs to back off.

McKenna talked about these issues with the Bellevue Reporter on Thursday after a fundraiser for the Bellevue Police Foundation.

This is how the conversation unfolded:

Reporter: You’ve faced a lot of backlash for your decision to challenge the health-care reform bill. What makes this lawsuit the right thing to do in your mind?

McKenna: As attorney general, I’m charged with responsibility of enforcing and upholding the federal and state constitutions and state laws. The other 13 attorneys general and I believe that some provisions of the health-care bill are un-constitutional – that they violate the rights of individuals in our states. If we don’t step up to this challenge, who will? Obviously the U.S. Department of Justice isn’t going to do it. They work for the (Obama) administration.

The fact is, the state’s often lead when it comes to these kinds of actions. It was the states that challenged the tobacco companies and forced them to pay for the health care costs to the states from tobacco consumption.

It was the states – in fact a group of Democratic AGs – who sued the Bush administration under the Clean Air Act for not enforcing it against greenhouse gases. Few people thought they had a chance there, and they actually had to go all the way to the Supreme Court before it prevailed. On tobacco, there was years of litigation before it prevailed.

The states play a special role in our federalist system. We believe the individual health-insurance mandate and some of the Medicaid provisions violate the Constitution. These are questions which are appropriate for the federal courts.

Reporter: The reaction to your lawsuit has been largely negative. Have you talked with the attorneys general from the other states? Are they seeing the same kind of reaction?

McKenna: I haven’t talked to them about the reactions they’re facing since we filed the lawsuit on Tuesday. The reaction we’re receiving at my office is mixed, but the majority of people seem in favor of it. However, that’s not the point. You don’t just defend the rights that a majority of the people support. We would be doing this even if the minority of people thought it was important for us to do so. That’s the point about civil rights. They exist independent of popular opinion. They’re built into our Constitution, and our Constitution means something.

Reporter: Legislators have talked about blocking state funding for the lawsuit. What are your thoughts on that?

McKenna: First of all, we’re not spending a bunch of state money on this lawsuit. Florida volunteered to take the laboring oar. They’ve been spending the money to do the drafting, and we’re in a consultative role. We’re not spending extra money to do this at all. It’s not necessary. In fact, we routinely engage in multi-state actions where other states carry the burden financially. Sometimes we carry the burden financially on a consumer-protection action, and we end up recovering those costs and fees.

Legislators who talk about cutting off funding need to think long and hard before they do that because it appears they’re cutting off funding from an effort to protect individual rights. I don’t think that’s going to be very popular with the citizens of Washington.

Reporter: Is there a limit on how much you’re willing to spend on this or how far you’re willing to take the lawsuit?

McKenna: There’s no extra cost associated with participating in this action. Even if there were, when it comes to defending the individual rights of Washington citizens, that’s why we’re there. If there’s expense, it’s the same kind of expense we incur when we enforce consumer-protection laws or the anti-trust laws.

Reporter: You’re considered a favorite for the GOP nomination in the next governor’s race. How did that affect your decision-making with this lawsuit?

McKenna: It didn’t. Every lawsuit, every action we take, is based on what we think the law requires and what my role as attorney general requires of me. I’ve noticed that when I bring an action that some people like, they say “Well, he’s just doing his job,” while other people who don’t like it say “He’s being political.” You just learn to get used to that as attorney general because you’re never going to make everybody happy with a particular legal-enforcement action. You do what you know is right, because that’s the oath you take.