The North Carolina legislature recently passed House Bill 2 (HB 2), the North Carolina Health Care Protection Act. This bill exempts North Carolinians from many of the requirements of ObamaCare.

Governor Perdue was expected to allow the bill to become law. Then Attorney General Roy Cooper sent along a memo arguing that the bill is unconstitutional and could even threaten Medicaid in North Carolina. Whether this memo will influence the governor to veto the bill remains to be seen.

The John Locke Foundation sent a letter to the governor explaining why the Attorney General’s arguments are unfounded.

First, the attorney general argued that HB 2 is unconstitutional because federal law trumps state law. This argument ignores the key question, however: if the federal law, ObamaCare, is unconstitutional, then it does not trump state law.

Furthermore, North Carolina does not have to strike down its own laws preemptively just because Congress has passed a conflicting federal law. Congress does not decide what is constitutional, nor does a state attorney general. The judiciary decides whether laws are constitutional.

Second, the attorney general argues that HB 2 would risk Medicaid funding in North Carolina. Specifically, the attorney general points to a requirement that states collect a $500 fee from certain providers in order to combat fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program. Since the bill prohibits any fee to be imposed "on a person for contracting with … a public … health care system," this could be problematic as it relates to collecting the $500 fee.

However, the plain language and clear intent of the bill completely contradicts such an interpretation. HB 2 does not prohibit a fee for the purposes of fighting fraud and abuse. The law prohibits a fee imposed on a person because that person decided to contract with a public health care system. The language of the bill focuses on the intent of the fee — the word "for" is used to indicate that the intent must be examined.

The attorney general is reading the bill to mean that no fee can ever be imposed on a person who contracts with a public health care system, unrelated to why the fee is being imposed.

To learn more, please read JLF’s letter and other letters sent to the governor that explain the attorney general’s faulty analysis.

Thursday: North Carolina Supreme Court Review

This Thursday, I will be presenting on the North Carolina Supreme Court, and specifically I will review major cases from 2010. Data on such issues as the number of cases, voting patterns, and much more will also be presented.

The court plays a major role in all of our lives, but very little information is made available to the public about its work. This presentation, which is based on a new publication, will help to shed some light on the court.

I hope you will attend this event.

Learn more and register here.

Click here for the Rights & Regulation Update archive.