Does Pissypants Have "Supremacy"? Not Really.

Wherein we find that pResident Pissypants doesn't always have the "supremacy" clause at his back (and in his particular case, rarely!)

Early in the linked essay, the author makes the point that Congress--and only Congress--has the Constitutional authority to regulate immigration, whether for 'naturalization' leading towards citizenship or for any OTHER category of immigrant, including refugees.

Then he addresses the 'supremacy' clause.

...left-wingers might argue that the states don’t have the power to determine rules of naturalization, either. True, they do not. But what the states DO have is the positive constitutional right from Article VI to nullify actions of the federal government which are not pursuant to the text of the Constitution,

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...”

The Supremacy Clause is often thought of solely in terms of “the federal government always overrules the states.” But, if you actually read what it says, it is not saying that. Federal laws (and its questionable that executive orders even qualify for that level of dignity anywise) must be made “in pursuance thereof” to the Constitution. If they are not, then the states are free to adjudge them as unconstitutional and of no force or authority. The Supremacy Clause actually cuts both ways....

Laws, or in Pissypants' case, 'executive orders' which are NOT 'pursuant to the Constitution' are not 'supreme,' but are subject to the judgment of the various States vis-a-vis enforceability.

(And yes, that also calls into question Pissypants' re-writes of ObozoCare which are obviously not 'law' pursuant to the Constitution.)