Yes because the constitution is a compact. Which means that all parties have the right to interpose if they disagree. The supremecy act therefore is invalid. If action was to arise the combination of the insurrection act of 1807 and the posse comitatus act would not allow the fed to respond. Also makes argument that first civil war secesion was legal.
There is already a war going on in Washington over the validity of checks and balances and the importance of the individual under the law vs. the needs of the collective. Does the need of the many really outweigh the value of the one?
Well, I don't think so. Our last American Civil War (1861-1865) was a violently bloody one. 600,000 Americans died. Imagine another Civil War today, the US runs out of money and possibly troops. Today a second Civil War is very VERY unlikely.
Just look at this last election. More than half of the voting public approved of the current administration. It was the most lopsided victory since President Eisenhower was elected. And there simply aren't enough wackos in that minority of voters who would want to destroy this nation and its government. To get that kind of backing for a civil war there would need to be huge percentage of the population that are desperately disenfranchised and dissatisfied with the government, are whose quality of life is abysmal. I see no evidence of that now or it being the case in the foreseeable future.
Civil war or revolution? Revolutions such as the French revolution require a disaffected lower and middle class, declining economic standards, difficulty finding jobs, lack of governmental social safety net, a competing political ideology, and a motivating (and oppressive) government. Almost all of these are lacking to some extent. Civil wars require a coherent ideology competing with another, an economic engine, and a sharp division among military members regarding allegiances. You need people in the streets, protesting as well as rioting. You may have a few (very few actually) disaffected anarchists in the Operation Wall Street movement, and maybe a couple hundred thousand or a million Tea Party activists, but none of them seem to be able to galvanize thousands to spontaneously protest. And as polarized as Democrats and Republicans are, there are not that many differences: both support Medicare and Social Security. Both believe in Big Government. Both believe in a strong national defense and even believe in public health care. The differences are on the margins (perhaps ~10 pct of GDP in taxes and spending), and how much will be private versus public. These actually are smallish differences which, if partisan rhetoric were toned down, we could find compromises that work.