Hadn't the Founders no limit in the trust they had in the Bill of Rights power to uplift the People no matter who they were, where they come from, their faith, their education or not, their beliefs?

Frankly, I was a bit surprised you wondered about the Founders writings should the Fed Gov let down some its missions leading to the States to adopt some legislation to fix it (was the third circuit judge right? ie State Immigration laws). At first, I'd approve the decision. Why should anyone want to fix a failed federal mission by adopting some State legislation, a conclusion you should only reach if the supposed failure results from a Congress's decision or the evaluation the Constitutional frame will not allow any future Congress to fulfill the mission? Did you reach the conclusion Congressmen and Ladies whatever sides of the alley they belong to are involved or did you mean that the frame, the decision making process and both the Senate and the House rules prevent to adopt the appropriate legislation?

Aren't Congress elections a more appropriate solution?

Sense of urgency?

Could a State adopt in the mean time a provisional legislation fixing the issue should its dearest interests and dearest People's interests be at stake while awaiting for the federal appropriate legislation to be adopted and the Executive branch to enforce it? I'd say yes if it is established its dearest interests and security are at stake and the provisional character of the legislation undiscussly linked to the lack of an appropriate federal legislation and repeated Congress failure to adopt one or the lack of the Executive branch enforcement of an existing legislation?