The Supreme Court has, more times than not, shown a reluctance to invalidate Congressional laws based on the Necessary and Proper clause. During the last couple of decades or so the Court has done so sparingly, but those cases tended to impose a requirement on states and local governments, or violate the principle of federalism, or exceed inferred authority under a claimed provision of the Constitution (e.g. Commerce clause) (Printz v. United States and US v. Lopez). In fact, the 10th amendment is, for all practical purposes, not even mentioned in most relevant majority or dissenting opinions. To do so would open up a pandora's box of petitions that the Court would be reluctant to accept for oral argument.

Also, one's mere existence in the United States requires that you obey federal, state, and local laws and penalizes one for failing to do so.