You raise several important questions. Admittedly, my opposition to state nullification, while having practical effect, derives from my principled view of the federalist system specifically set up by the United States Constitution. As I said earlier, state nullification derails the very careful balance between the federal government and the state governments, by giving state governments too much power over what is in the exclusive prerogative of the federal (since the state nullification doctrine would allow for a state or several states to nullify federal laws with which it or they disagree, whether or not the federal law is unconstitutional). Also, I just do not read the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as conferring any such authority upon the states. The Tenth Amendment is neither more nor less than a tautology - an obvious statement that could not be otherwise. It says merely that those powers that are not conferred specifically to the federal government reside in the state governments and the people. Well, where else could such powers reside, if they are not conferred specifically by the United States Constitution within the federal government? It is like saying that any color of sky that is not blue must be the color of the sky of a planet other than the Earth. Since I see the Tenth Amendment as doing little more than making an obvious statement, I cannot see it alone as creating a mechanism for defeating an out of control federal government - let alone in creating a mechanism for state nullification. If the framers wanted states to be able to nullify federal laws, then I strongly suspect that they would have said so unambiguously.
Nevertheless, you raise an important point. What are we supposed to do when every day, in virtually every arena of social, economic, and political life, the federal government indirectly or directly intercedes, often to the detriment of good policy? What are we to do when in fact there is not a dime of difference between electing a Republican Tweedle Dee or a Democrat Tweedle Dum? What are we to do when real political power resides in that Washington/Wall Street axis that prevails, regardless of which party controls Congress or the White House?
While I do not believe that the United States Constitution confers upon a state or the states the power to nullify federal laws, I agree that we need to do more than just elect or re-elect the same, run of the mill, oligarchic approved politicos. There was a Tea Party Revolution in most of the United States in 2010; and yet, in spite of our impressive gains in the House in particular, we did not manage to make anything but a few million in real cuts to our budget - the rest of the "cuts" were just promised "cuts" in the growth of future spending, which all of us know is never actually going to happen. Furthermore, it is clear in looking at the array of Republican Presidential candidates that Ronald Reagan is nowhere on the horizon. Even as I disagree with him on a lot of issues, I admire Ron Paul at least for being sincere about his own principles. He says what he really believes, even if Republican audiences at the debate forums routinely jeer at him, and moderators try to pretend that he is not there. The problem is that neither Ron Paul, nor any other sincere man, is likely to be our next President, or the President any time soon. Instead, we are likely going to be faced with the prospect of either a socialist Obama or a flim flam, snake oil selling Romney or Gingrich - and, as always, the business as usual crowd will succeed in increasing our debt and in spreading dependency.
So what are we to do, when, as I believe, the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws? I believe that we need to amend the United States Constitution to allow for the people (not in this or that state, but as a national whole) to compel referendum elections on federal laws, so long as so many signatures are gathered from registered voters within a particular period of time. In order to make sure that we do not have too many such referendum votes, like in California, which seems to have a "special election" on an initiative or a referendum several times a year, the amendment could stipulate that the federal government holds this type of an election only once per year (assuming at least one referendum petition qualifies for that calendar year) and includes all such referendums that have been qualified within the calendar year. The amendment also could state that the people have a right to do a national referendum vote not only on laws passed by Congress but on opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court. In the case of the latter, the people of course would not have the ability to write a legal opinion; they simply could vote to overturn the legal opinion, that they oppose, and thus allow whatever legal opinion had prevailed earlier to be reinstated as if the overturned opinion never had been issued. Finally, the amendment would establish an independent auditor for receiving, counting, and qualifying referendum petitions and, as may be necessary, for administering the annual referendum elections (thus keeping states, and state secretaries of state, from playing a role in the referendum of a federal law, and at the same time keeping partisan Presidential Administrations from subverting the process). This would be a large undertaking, as frankly it should be, since we do not want every nickel and dime federal law being voted upon in this manner. Nevertheless, the most egregious federal laws and Supreme Court opinions, like Roe v. Wade, likely would engender enough petition signatures to qualify for a national referendum, which is as it should be, if indeed the people are to be the sovereigns of the American Republic.
That is my idea. I am going to think through this matter in more detail and perhaps publish an article. I have no doubt that others have come up with much the same idea and may be better able to articulate its features than I have done here. Regardless, if there is merit with this idea, then it can and should be fleshed out over time, as that would occur necessarily in the process of approving a constitutional amendment that has widespread appeal.
