Um.... "that quote" is the part of the Constitution on which the injunction was based. I'd say that's pretty pertinent.
It is agreed the federal government has higher authority, but that does not mean the state is powerless in the face of an intentional absence of federal action.
No, but it does mean that the state cannot pass laws that supercede federal laws on a particular topic. The opinion (see link above) deals at great length on the topic.
You should also read Judge Noonan's concurring opinion.
Bear in mind also that the legislation passed by the state of AZ was not intended to, and does not supersede the Constitution or federal law.
The plain language of the law says otherwise. Again, see Judge Noonan's concurring opinion.
Not even a “nice try”. The quote may have pertinence to an injunction, the merits of which are yet to be properly tested at the highest level, but the quote isn’t pertinent to the issue I raised - the right of a state to defend itself from foreign invasion in the absence of effective federal action.
As for whether the AZ’s law actually supersedes federal law, which I agree is inappropriate re immigration, it is my understanding from an initial reading of the law, the writings of reviewers and its authors, that it did not.
I’ll read the decision and review the arguments of the authors of the law. I’ll be back, either to congratulate you or educate you.
Regards,{:^)