The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine (States Don’t Have to Comply)

[allodial]

{Success you didn't know you already had. Basing your idea of the law on deceptive television is to be avoided.}

The fundamental principle applicable to all cases of this sort, would seem to be, that where the end is required, the means are given; and where the duty is enjoined, the ability to perform it is contemplated to exist on the part of the functionaries to whom it is entrusted. The clause is found in the national Constitution, and not in that of any state. It does not point out any state functionaries, or any state action to carry its provisions into effect. The states cannot, therefore, be compelled to enforce them; and it might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of the power of interpretation, to insist that the states are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of the national government, nowhere delegated or {entrusted} to them by the Constitution.

She later expounded on this point.

(Source/more)

Related:

• The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine
• Federal Law Does Not Preempt State Marijuana or Gun Laws in Colorado