Do constitutional structural limits on federal authority impose constraints on the scope of Congress authority to enact legislation to implement a valid treaty, at least in circumstances where the federal statute, as applied, intrudes on the traditional state prerogatives, and is concededly unnecessary to satisfy the government's treaty obligations?

In 2014 the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional as applied §229, criminal provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.(See Bond v U.S 12-158) Also in that case Justice Thomas stated... "There will come a case where this court will have to decide the constitutionally of statutes implementing treaties and the use of the dictum in Missuri v Holland". The Protect Act which amended the Mann Act, who’s orgins also came from a 1904 international treaty on forced prostitution, but got most of it’s wording from sections of the 1907 Immigration Act. The Protect Act was not created to promote a national interest, or issues that the states could not resolve with it’s own penal legislation. It was created because .the federal governments belief that using the Necessary & Proper Clause, to pass implementing legislation, on the grounds that the treaty power is exempt from the 10E Amendment. These type of statutes have been used to invalidate state age of consent laws, sending thousands to prison for decades. It's time for the Supreme Court to confront Missouri v Holland and also declare that consensual sexual activity"that is not commercial and between two people who are the age of consent in that state is protected by the Constitution. QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE: 1. Do constitutional structural limits on federal authority impose constraints on the scope of Congress authority to enact legislation to implement a valid treaty,at least in circumstances where the federal statute, as applied, intrudes on the traditional state prerogatives, and is concededly unnecessary to satify the government's treaty obligations ? i 2) Can the Protect Act be interpreted not to reach ordinary domestic cases unrelated to concerns of foreign governments, where state and local statutes are enough to satify the U.S treaty obligations, in order to avoid the difficult question on whether to overrule Missouri v Holland? 3. Are state age of consent laws invalidated by federal laws that place the generic age of a minor at 18. 4. Is sexual activity not proven to have any commercial use, by two people who are the age of consent in that state protected by the Constitution?