Seems to me we’ve been down this road before. An executive order, like a Congressional statute, is federal law, to be challenged in the courts, not contradicted by the states. Our defenders of the Constitution need to read all the way to the end.
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; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
… Yes, valid executive orders are “laws of the United States” under the Supremacy Clause. Old Dominion Branch No. 496 v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 273 n.5 (1974). Who decides their validity? Ultimately, the Supreme Court, as Truman found out in the Steel Seizure Case.
… Think about it: suppose that a given executive order is unconstitutional because it treads upon the rights of the states. Under Bryant’s proposal, a city or county that wanted to enact such a law couldn’t, because it would then arguably be “enforcing” the executive order. So if Obama wants, oh, a background check at gun shows, and the city of Jackson enacts such an ordinance, what then?
… Update: according to reporter Emily Wagster Pettus, the Gov says that criminals will just get their ammo clips from the Soviet Union. True! Or from Austria-Hungary! Or East Prussia!
(Speaking of Emily and vanished countries, she used to have a National Geographic map of post-Anschluss Germany framed & hanging on her wall, which I sorely coveted.)