If you haven’t heard, a sizable number — more than a dozen thus far — of states are planning to sue the federal government regarding the recent health care legislation. According to their actually rather well constructed arguments, the health care bill recently passed — officially the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, termed by Republicans “Obamacare” — is a gross abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause and an infringement of states rights and, thus, unconstitutional. Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli is particularly angry about the legislation, as it allegedly tramples on legislated Virginia law prohibiting mandatory insurance, and he has been at least figuratively heading the charge.

So, the question is, should North Carolina get involved?

First of all, to be clear, this is not an actually pertinent question: North Carolina Attorney General Roy A. Cooper is a Democrat, who would never so blatantly attack his own party, meaning the question is moot. This argument is, fortunately or unfortunately, more theoretical than literal. But it’s still important.

With that being said, why sue the government and implicitly reject the health care reform?

First off, I will agree with Cuccinelli — there is something inherently troubling about the federal government’s arrest of state rights via health care. The audacity of the government to step in and essentially take over the entire system when individual states can fix these issues in a manner better tailored to their needs is rather troubling. I won’t lie, I find it incredibly worrisome that the federal answer to an industry problem is to simply seize the industry and destroy large swaths of it without much input from states. Call me paranoid, but I’d much rather have my state government make such decisions based upon the individual needs of my state rather than have the federal government make blanket statements for everyone.

Of course, the implied issue with the above is that there is a significantly high chance that states will have to foot a lot of the bill for the legislated health care reform, particularly in terms of the legislated insurance “exchanges”. Like it or not, federal changes to the health care system cost states money, especially in terms of having to accommodate new rules, potential loss of business from insurance companies, and even from something as ridiculous as the 10% tax on tanning. This kind of issue seems to be a big player in this lawsuit: from a state government perspective, this 2010 health care reform is not merely the federal government taking away control, but it’s the federal government taking away money as well.

So does this mean we should expect (or even want) our Attorney General to sue the federal government? Well, no. Honestly, they have better things to do, and it’s a massive waste of state funds and state funded lawyer time to be working on such a project. Attorney Generals have better things to do.

The individuals who should be pursuing such a lawsuit should be individuals — people who don’t want to be part of the system — not politicians. All a good health care lawsuit would really require is for an individual to simply refuse to pay for health insurance and to refuse to pay the subsequent penalty. This is not to say this would be a perfect method, as it is not entirely guaranteed to gain enough traction to make it to where it would need to be (the Supreme Court) to revoke the law — but it’s a start, and certainly a more appropriate one than allowing an Attorney General do it. At least in my mind, it is far more respectable for an individual to do so and stand up for his rights than for a politician, angry about the opposing party, to inappropriately use his position as an Attorney General to levy against a bill he doesn’t like.