A federal judge ruled that President Barack Obama's health care overhaul is unconstitutional on Monday, and North Idaho legislators couldn't agree more.

"I find this ruling by a federal judge encouraging," said Athol Rep. Phil Hart. "I think there's an overreach with the federal government, and I think they've been legislating outside their constitutional values."

Florida Justice Roger Vinson ruled that the new health care law violated people's rights because of the insurance mandate requiring all Americans to purchase insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

A Virginia judge has also ruled that the insurance provision is unconstitutional, but Vinson's ruling was broader in deeming that the entire law violates the Constitution.

The reform act will now likely be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Hart approved of the ruling because health care is best left to the private sector, he said.

"They will provide a better service at a cheaper cost than the government will ever be able to do," he said.

He added that he is in support of state Rep. Vito Barbieri's House Bill 59 to nullify Obama's health care reform act in Idaho.

"We do have a history of nullification in the U.S., and sometimes the political lens will blow a certain way, depending on how much support there is for an idea," Hart said. "This concept of nullification is getting widespread support, not only in Idaho but across the country."

Barbieri, a Dalton Gardens Republican, said the ruling shows his bill is leading the nation.

"We are certain more states will pass similar legislation," he said.

His object is to stop new taxes and new bureaucracy the health care reform would create, he said.

"Expensive," is Barbieri's opinion of the law being adopted in Idaho. "Our meeting with the Department of Insurance on the amount necessary to comply with the insurance exchanges was inestimable. We have no idea how many millions it would take."

He doesn't know when the Legislature will vote on Bill 59, he added, though he said it will go before full committee on Monday.

"As much as I would like to believe the Supreme Court will follow the lower court's ruling, there's no reason given in past cases to believe the Supreme Court would rule on the side of the states," Barbieri said.

Sen. Jim Hammond, R-Post Falls, praised the ruling.

He felt the health care overhaul demonstrated the federal government trying to dominate the states, he said.

"It's more than just a principle involved. (The health care reform's) practical application doesn't work, either," Hammond said. "They took on a task they really can't manage, and it's just increasing the cost for everybody."

Sen. John Goedde said he supports the challenge of constitutionality.

But he doesn't believe nullification will happen through Bill 59, he said. The state attorney general has pointed out problems with the bill, Goedde said, like that Idaho may have entered the union too late to legally pursue nullification.

"I certainly don't want to spend a whole bunch of state money challenging this nullification in court. Not when we're short of money," Goedde said. "From what I understand of the attorney general's opinion, I don't think the bill that's been proposed will move forward this year."

Idaho was one of the 26 states that had joined in the Florida lawsuit to block the health care reform Obama signed into law this March.

Attorneys for the administration had argued that the case should be dismissed, as the states did not have standing to challenge the law.

Two other federal judges have upheld the insurance requirement.

Post Falls resident Amy Seick, 38, said she doesn't support the insurance mandate.

"People should do what they feel they need to do," she said. "I don't think we should be forced to do anything, except for moral laws."

Mark Davis, also of Post Falls, said he would like to see everyone have insurance.

But not everyone can afford it, he added.

"It's like auto insurance. You pay and you may not need it, but if you do, having it helps," he said.