Unconstitutional federal laws neuter themselves.

Andrew Bailey is up to bat. The pertinent points are:

The precedent is clear, the federal government has no authority whatsoever to compel a state to enforce a federal law. So, what’s the difference here? Sadly, all too many federal judges stubbornly believe the Second Amendment is a second-class right. In the case of the recent ruling against SAPA, the Eighth Circuit simply invoked the Constitution’s supremacy clause, and gave the back of its judicial hand to Missouri and every other state that might question the constitutionality of a federal law — at least a federal gun law.

The States are no more required to follow unconstitutional laws than individuals are.

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it." - Quote by: American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition Source: 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Quote by: Marbury vs. Madison Source: 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)

“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President to Justice William Johnson, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322

"No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute." - Quote by: Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) American statesman, Secretary of the Treasury Source: Federalist Papers #78, See also Warning v. The Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, P.93; First Trust Co. v. Smith, 277 SW 762, Marbury v. Madison, 2 L Ed 60; and Am.Juris. 2d Constitutional Law, section 177-178)

"Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other." - Quote by: John Locke (1632-1704) English philosopher and political theorist. Considered the ideological progenitor of the American Revolution and who, by far, was the most often non-biblical writer quoted by the Founding Fathers of the USA.

“The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. ... Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President

We need to remember that our brilliant and all encompassing constitution was written so that an illiterate farmer of the day could understand it. Today we have slews of edumacated ijits (lol) who are intent on injecting or deleting content that isn't there. for example "shall not be infringed" sounds simple enough to me, but those ijits have translated it into wet mash.

If Joe Biden can ignore a Supreme Court ruling that bans student loan forgiveness, given that it wasn't passed by Congress, why should states be compelled to follow federal law?