North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple Signs Obamacare Nullification Bill

Apparently deciding that the risk of angering his constituents over a failure to act against Obamacare was worse than angering his Attorney General, Wayne Stenehjem, who holds that the state cannot pass laws contradicting federal law, Governor Jack Dalrymple signed SB2309.

I believe North Dakota is, with Idaho, only the second state in the nation to pass a nullification bill. Several other states are considering it, however.

The bill affirms that North Dakotans have the right to buy, or not buy, whatever health insurance they want. This law is statute. A previous bill that would have amended the constitution with similar language was defeated with a gang of 29 House Republicans voting with Democrats at the behest of Stenehjem to kill it.

This bill was discussed on Fox News recently by state nullification proponent Tom Woods and Judge Andrew Napolitano. “The new state law, if signed by Dalrymple, says the federal health insurance law can’t interfere with North Dakotans’ decision to buy health insurance or not buy health insurance,” wrote the editorial board of the Minot Daily News though the paper went on to say that the law “won’t make a difference” because state law “can’t override a federal law.”

This, of course, isn’t true. The states are under no obligation to abide by federal laws that are unconstitutional. And since that is the State of North Dakota’s official position on Obamacare in a multi-state lawsuit challenging the law, this law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor is appropriate.

Kudos to Dalrymple for having the courage many other political leaders in this state do not.

In related news, state legislators passed the budget for the state health department without including $1.9 million in funding from Obamacare:

Lawmakers have passed the budget for the state Health Department without any funding from the federal health care legislation.

The conference committee on the bill had agreed to restore the Measure 3 tobacco cessation funding but the question of whether to use $1.9 million in grants allocated as part of federal reform remained a sticking point.

The final bill did not authorize the department to use the grant, which would mainly fund home visits in cases where child abuse or other problems might develop during pregnancy or shortly after birth. Other aspects of the grant would fund abstinence programs and training within the department.

Democrats in both houses stood up to criticize the exclusion of the grant, which they said funded a worthy program without using state money, even if the source was a controversial one.

With the federal government going bankrupt, the last thing we need is more federal money inflating our state budgets.