sounds great but when has this administration been concerned for what is can do legally?
There is an interesting twist to the constitution. In past, the SCOTUS has found that congress is superior to state legislatures, and that federal judges are superior to state judges. But it has never found that the POTUS is superior to state governors.
This means, that when the POTUS and a governor are in contention, the only way the POTUS can enforce his will is with military force of arms. The last time this happened was when Bill Clinton’s mentor, governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas, rejected integration of Little Rock High School, and Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne to force it.
W. Bush refused to do so just when faced with inaction by the governor of Louisiana, after hurricane Katrina. Bush wanted to send in FEMA, but the governor refused to allow it.
The independence of governors also devolves somewhat to county Sheriffs, depending on the state. In many states, the governor cannot force compliance by Sheriffs. Yet at the same time, the governor acts as a buffer against direct action by the POTUS against Sheriffs.
A great example of this is the inability of Obama to force compliance from Joe Arpaio. The worst he has been able to do is to order Holder to investigate Arpaio over alleged civil rights abuses, though Obama would like nothing better than to arrest Arpaio and throw him into a federal prison for the rest of his life.