So far as a foreigner can judge, my guess is that this is a hat on a stick, meant to be shot off. The lawmakers must have legal advisors to tell them that this will never survive judicial review: so the object is to be able to go back to their voters and tell them that they did their best, but the godless tyrants of Washington overruled them. From their point of view, tha'ts a win-win: they get the kudos for having passed a popular law, without (as so often happens with such laws) having to cope with the consequences of its being unworkable in practice.