Ah, so you're one of those folks that thinks the States derive their authority from the Feds, instead of the Federal-government from the States then.
(Incidentally, how would you react if California chose to "nullify" the federal ban on on partial-birth abortions-- a ban which was justified by Congress on the stated basis that it was a regulation of interstate commerce?).
Interstate commerce
is the most abused phrase in the Constitution, and it's been abused by the Judiciary to justify all sorts of overreach: Wickard, Schenck, Raich.
It can be resolved by electing Congressmen and Senators more sensitive to federalism, or by judicial challenges to unconstitutional legislation (which were successful on the gun-control front, and came within one vote of being successful on Obamacare). War is not, I think, likely to be a successful option-- I, for one, don't want to see Sherman's March to the Sea re-enacted, this time with Sherman carrying tactical nuclear weapons.
You have more faith in the judiciary than I. My state supreme-court just ruled that a business cannot refuse services to homosexuals… in direct violation of the State Constitution: NM Constitution, Art II, Sec 11.
Moreover, things like Wickard, Schenck, Raich, Kelo leave very little confidence that the judiciary would push toward what the Constitution actually says rather than what is (a) convenient, (b) popular, and/or (c) their own ideology.
[You:] Interstate commerce is the most abused phrase in the Constitution, and it's been abused by the Judiciary to justify all sorts of overreach: Wickard, Schenck, Raich.
So you think California can nullify the federal ban on partial-birth abortions?