In 1842, SCOTUS handed down the terrible decision in Prigg v Pennsylvania. SCOTUS drastically expanded the federal government’s so-called power under the Necessary and Proper Clause, and made other unconstitutional rulings in this decision. But the one good thing to come out of this decision was that the court held states cannot be “compelled to enforce” the Fugitive Slave Act. Rather, the national government is responsible for carrying into effect its own policies. This limitation on congressional power became the foundation for the “anti-commandeering doctrine.” Thus, SCOTUS now holds that Congress lacks the power to “commandeer,” or force, states to implement federal programs.
While I agree with the anti-commandeering doctrine, I think many states (and cities and counties that are a component or form of state government) are ACTIVELY OBSTRUCTING AND EVADING (or aiding and abetting evading) and using the anti-commandeering doctrine as a misleading and false excuse.
I’m not so sure I like having state government more powerful than the feds. There are a lot of snakes in state government who can cause havoc on issues of national interest and effect. (Like commerce, guns, and voting rights, even speech without malice if states like CO and CA get their way.) The authors of the Federalist Papers wrote WARNING about unprincipled men or factions controlling the smaller state governments.
There are many people out there touting state primacy. They ought to think more carefully about what they are advocating.