RALEIGH – Gov. Beverly Perdue vetoed the Health Care Protection Act because the Obama administration told her to.

That much seems clear. When the bill originally passed both houses of the Republican-controlled General Assembly, the governor indicated that she viewed the legislation as of little consequence and would let it become law without her signature.

But Democratic leaders in Washington were not amused. Nor were some liberal activists in North Carolina and elsewhere. By last week, a different strategy was in place. Attorney General Roy Cooper released an opinion arguing that the bill was unconstitutional and posed a threat to North Carolina’s federal funding. Citing Cooper’s argument, Perdue issued her veto.

Cooper’s arguments aren’t just incorrect. They are laughable. Because the bill’s main purpose is to establish legal standing – a state law in conflict with a federal law – so that North Carolina can join the multi-state litigation challenging ObamaCare, it makes no sense to argue for a veto on the grounds that the laws have conflicting provisions. Of course they do.

But because the individual mandate in ObamaCare doesn’t kick in until 2014, Cooper’s argument that the state law is unenforceable is also silly. Perhaps it will be by 2014, if the litigation fails and ObamaCare remains the law of the land, but right now there is nothing stopping Perdue, Cooper, and other officials from executing the state law.

Perhaps realizing that his legal position was untenable, Cooper tossed in a different claim: that North Carolina would jeopardize its Medicaid funding by failing to impose a fee to fund anti-fraud programs under ObamaCare. But this claim is testable. Many other states have already enacted laws or constitutional amendments similar to the Health Care Protection Act. No state has had its Medicaid funding threatened as a result.

Attorneys from the General Assembly staff, the John Locke Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the Center for Constitutional Litigation all weighed in last week with opinions strongly in disagreement with Cooper’s.

The governor had plenty of time and legal advice with which to make a sensible decision. She chose to do the bidding of the Obama administration, as did Cooper.

What’s less clear to me is how the issue will play out in the coming weeks. While Democratic lawmakers will face the same pressure to support the president to which Perdue succumbed, they also have to keep in mind that ObamaCare is unpopular among likely North Carolina voters. By voting to uphold the veto, they are further entangling themselves with an issue that will not help them defend their seats, much less regain power, in the next cycle of legislative elections.

Because it now seems likely that the appellate courts will be ruling on the federal mandate’s constitutionality sooner rather than later, perhaps Democrats will conclude that supporting the president won’t cost them much. They might think that regardless of whether ObamaCare is struck down, a vote to uphold Perdue’s veto will be seen as a moot point in a few months.

Well, maybe. But if the law is declared unconstitutional, those who voted to defend it will look foolish, or worse. And even if the court challenge to the president’s signature legislation fails, ObamaCare will be a major political issue for many years to come.

I seriously doubt it will become more popular over time. As health care and insurance costs continue to rise, many voters will blame the law. And when Congress and the president choose not to implement the Medicare cuts anticipated in the reform plan, as is the most likely scenario, its disastrous effects on the federal budget will generate still more frustration and disenchantment.

Republicans did the right thing. With the public, the law, and the principles of true health care reform on their side, they passed legislation to add North Carolina to the ranks of states challenging unbridled federal power.

Perdue and Cooper did the wrong thing. They defended a lousy policy because it is their president’s policy. Now it’s their lousy policy, too.

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.