A federal judge in Virginia has ruled that ObamaCare – the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – is unconstitutional, raising the hopes of those trying to stop the law. U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson concluded that Congress does not have the authority to compel someone to make a private commercial transaction, such as mandating the purchase of health care insurance by every American by 2014.

“It is a big play, might even be a touchdown, in the first quarter of what is going to be a long game,” said Patrick Wright, senior legal counsel for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

Most legal experts think the bill will eventually end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor filed its own suit in Michigan over the constitutionality of the individual mandate. A U.S. district judge in Detroit ruled that the individual health care mandate was constitutional.

Rob Muise, senior trial counsel for TMLC, said they have filed a notice to appeal.

Muise said all the different actions being taken by states to stop the federal health care act should draw the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court. According to the Wall Street Journal, more than 20 lawsuits have been filed against the health care law since it was signed in March.

“This has so much national importance with all these states doing different things and having grave concerns about this, there is no question the Supreme Court is going to sit up and take notice,” Muise said. “The fat lady in all of this is the United States Supreme Court.”

Despite Monday’s ruling, one expert thinks it is state legislation, not the court rooms, that will have the most impact in combating the federal health care act.

“We don’t have a lot of faith in the federal judiciary system being the solution,” said Mike Maharrey, spokesman for the Tenth Amendment Center, a limited government think tank.

Maharrey said the Tenth Amendment Center thinks states passing their own laws stopping federal health care are the best solution.

Michigan’s GOP politicians have brought forth their own Health Care Freedom bills, but none were passed. But that was before the Republicans took control of the state’s House of Representatives, Senate and the governor’s office.

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, seven states have passed Health Care Freedom acts. They are Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Missouri and Virginia. Twenty-nine other states have proposed similar legislation.

Texas has proposed a “nullification bill.” Maharrey said not only does Texas’ proposed bill make the federal health care bill invalid, it also makes it a crime for anyone to enforce any part of the federal health care bill. Those convicted face a $5,000 fine and/or up to five years in prison.

Maharrey said he thinks that the opposition to the federal health care act could send it the route of medicinal marijuana and REAL ID.

The REAL ID Act of 2005 is a U.S. federal law that was to impose new security standards for a state's driver's licenses. Many states passed their own state laws and the act has not been implemented.

In California and Michigan, the passing of medicinal marijuana laws is in conflict with the national law prohibiting possession and sale of the narcotic. Yet federal enforcement has been spotty because popular will is behind the state laws liberalizing marijuana possession.

“You haven’t seen the Feds coming banging down people’s doors,” Maharrey said.

And Wright believes that while no single state passing a Health Care Freedom Act will lead to certain defeat of the federal law, the combined moral impact of many states passing such laws could ultimately sway the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court toward individual liberty and cause it to check the power of Washington.

“The framers intended the federal government to have limited powers, and states to be the broad agents for social change,” said Wright. “The more of these laws that are passed by states, the more likely the Court will be to honor the framers’ intent.”

An education group recently reported some prosperous years for the Michigan Education Association: The head of the state’s largest teachers union is being paid nearly $300,000 while other top leaders earn more than $200,000.

But some are wondering why a union that supports its members being paid based only on education level and seniority is compensating its leaders differently.

“If the MEA is attempting to attract a high-quality workforce with top-notch compensation packages, why don’t they allow school districts to do the same?” asked Michael Van Beek, director of education policy for the Mackinac Center. “Locked into a union-demanded single salary schedule that treats all teachers like assembly line workers, districts can’t offer a high-quality physics or calculus teacher more money.

“School districts are forced to offer all teachers the exact same pay package.”

But Doug Pratt, director of public affairs for the union, says that MEA executives are paid democratically and by seniority.

“Each year at MEA’s Spring Representative Assembly, democratically-elected MEA members vote to approve MEA’s budget – this includes the budget for executive salaries,” said Pratt in an e-mail. “[The] MEA firmly believes in providing excellent compensation to all employees as a means of recruiting and retaining the best possible workforce for MEA’s members.”

But Pratt denies that union leaders are paid differently than members. “MEA salaries are determined by seniority-based salary schedules.  MEA pay is not based on merit.”

A watchdog group critical of the union says this is misleading.

“They have a different salary schedules for their union executives than their other lower-level union staff,” said Steve Gunn, the communications director for the Muskegon-based Education Action Group. “And those [salaries] are entirely different than what they suggest for public school teachers.”

“This reminds me of Animal Farm, where all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.”

Van Beek believes the union is being inconsistent with their pay levels.

“If the MEA held true to its beliefs about what’s best for teachers, they’d pay all of their employees exactly the same regardless of their position or value to the union.”