If single states can nullify, there is little point to congress.
The de jure remedy is an amendment to empower the parties to the constitution, say 3/5 of the states, to repeal congressional, executive, judicial acts.
I acknowledge that Obama and his rats illegally nullify/amend the constitution on a regular basis, and we being pushed to our limits. My hope is for peaceful resolution via Article V.
That is my hope as well but at some point the feds are going to have to cooperate with the results. If the results come even close to limiting the feds to its constitutional powers, many thousands of government workers, bureaucratic heads, and officials will be packing their bags and heading for home with no job. It's possible but not likely. But I'm all for the effort.
State nullification doesn't ensure anarchy, if done right. It demands the Constitution be the Rule of Law - that is the antithesis of anarchy. Most unconstitutional federal acts have had no reasoning or justification based on good-faith findings of the actual text and original understanding and intent of the Constitution or applicable clauses. State nullification could force a review of federal acts in the light of good-faith constitutional interpretation. That would be a huge step in the right direction and could lead to the feds backing down from at least the most egregious illegal acts.
Constitutional interpretation was never meant to limited to the feds themselves. Again, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments support that.
There are best-case and worst-case scenarios for state nullification. You limit the only end game to the worst possible scenario - "anarchy" (which is ironic since the effort I'm calling for would be to RE-ESTABLISH the Rule of Law, not break it).
The possibilities go both ways. As it stands, if nothing changes, we are headed for anarchy in the form of tyranny and a complete break from the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution. It is stealth and very gradual, almost unfelt, but Obama has accelerated things.
State nullification says enough NOW. If demanding the Constitution be the Rule of Law is anarchy, then I'd rather have that than letting my freedom be taken away without a shot being fired. State nullification creates a hope that tyranny stops here and now and we can negotiate using the Constitution as the basis with out shots being fired. Otherwise, people are voting for tyranny by default because they are afraid to fight for their freedom.
I don't believe it is enough nor necessary to sit by while almost daily we see our freedoms being taken away while we hope that someday we'll have a successful Article V convention to which the feds actually acquiesce.
Better than single-state nullification, Ayn Rand proposed the following amendment to the U.S. Constitution that completely rocks:
There shall be no law restricting the rights of production and trade.
Effectively puts the fed and the federal government out of business since that’s all they do is restrict the rights of production and trade.