President Barack Obama signed the recent health care reform legislation into law Tuesday that would provide insurance for 32 million uninsured Americans, sparking a state representative to challenge the bill’s constitutionality.

The bill passed through the House of Representatives Sunday after nearly a year of heated debate.

“After a century of striving, after a year of debate, after a historic vote, health care reform is no longer an unmet promise. It is the law of the land,” Obama said at the Department of Interior, according to a White House statement.

Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., said she thinks the bill is a step in the right direction, despite the fact that many compromises were made to get such legislation passed.

“While it’s not everything I hoped it would be, it is a historic first step towards health care reform,” Baldwin said.

University of Wisconsin political science professor Barry Burden echoed this sentiment, saying this bill would not be the end of health care reform.

“This is an important bill, but it’s not as momentous as either side is saying,” Burden said.

Burden added though concessions were made, some groups are still going to see significant change, like young adults who have yet to gain employment-based health insurance.

Burden also said finishing the health care bill is an essential step in allowing Obama to start dealing with many of his other goals.

“His presidency has become defined by this, in a way,” Burden said.

Many Republicans expressed disapproval with the bill being signed into law, including Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

“The government-knows-best philosophy advanced on the floor by the majority today is paternalistic, arrogant and at odds with out nation’s unique character. We are fast approaching a tipping point in which more Americans depend on the government than on themselves for their livelihoods,” Ryan said on the House floor Sunday.

Such disapproval caused state Rep. Roger Roth, R-Appleton, to announce his intention Tuesday to compose an assembly resolution asking the attorney general to file suit against the bill.

Roth wrote in the statement there is room to question the constitutionality of sections of the bill under the 10th amendment, which ensures state rights.

According to a press release by Special Assistant Attorney General for Public Affairs and Policy Kevin St. John, for Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen to pursue such legal action either the governor or the Legislature would have to authorize him to do so.

If that happened, the attorney general would then have to decide if there is a legal basis for the action.

“The role of the state attorneys general and the courts is not to veto those policy choices made by elected officials — that would be decidedly undemocratic — but to appropriately examine, in the context of a case, whether the law is consistent with the Constitution of the United States,” St. John said.

Despite the debate, many, including Baldwin, are optimistic about the change such reforms could bring.

“This is something that political leaders have worked on for over 100 years, and to get a chance to work on the effort that finally passed is quite humbling and quite amazing,” Baldwin said.