[ForGod'sSake]

Federal courts have an inherent conflict of interest in hearing this case anyway. If they find for the states, then well and good, but if they find for the feds, they’re finding for their paymaster, so their ruling would be somewhere between suspect and moot.

Pretty much the way I see it but I also don't see a better alternative. Arbitration? Mediation? I'm certain the Founders wrestled with this question themselves and I'm not a good enough student of history or the federalist papers to understand the rationale. It could be there just wasn't a better alternative. It MAY be they felt the states had enough retained powers they could fend off any encroachments by the federales. BUT that was before the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments, to name a few "official" adjustments to the original document. Same with the "supremacy" and "commerce" clauses. The Founders may have felt the states had enough power to tell the feral government to pound sand if they got out of line? And so it goes...

[Still Thinking]

Pretty much the way I see it but I also don't see a better alternative.

Yeah, I know. I wrestle with that too. An honest federal judiciary, maybe? A multi-judge panel with federal judges, judges from the state in question, and judges from other states?