For people who contest the historical origins of anticommandeering doctrine, the U.S. House of Representatives debated whether it was unconstitutional to require state Governors to notify the federal government of the presidential electors their states appointed. (Dec. 22, 1791)

Representatives Niles and Hillhouse feared that requiring Governors to "discharge any duty on behalf of the United States . . . involves a blending of" federal and state powers "which [is] not warranted by the Constitution."

Hillhouse labeled it "improper" because "[i]t imposed a duty on the Supreme Executives of the several states which they might, or might not, execute."

Ultimately, the House retained the clause, with several representatives arguing it was minor, not degrading to state executives. No one disputed the underlying concept that Congress couldn't direct state Governors to executive federal laws.

The law at issue required Governors to notify the U.S. Government about the results of their presidential elections. If that narrow, ministerial & innocuous requirement was a close call triggering an anticommandeering debate, the doctrine itself seems on solid historical ground