At present, I'm placing myself thoroughly in the Wingnut (rightwing lunatic) rather than Moonbat (leftwing lunatic) category by endorsing this, but that's because it's the right whose ox is about to be gored over the next four to eight years. Unlike the modern right, I've always been a fan of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and its even more disregarded sibling, the Ninth Amendment.
Recently, however, the 10th, which reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
has been making a tiny, feeble comeback of sorts. Prompted by efforts of various state legislators, according to the Washington Times, as well as three governors (all showboating for the Republican nomination in 2012), about a dozen states are considering "sovereignty" resolutions which claim to reject acceptance of the Obama administration's ghastly and ill-advised "stimulus" law, or more cynically, federal constraints on how the money must be spent. Others, such as lawmakers in Montana, seek to reject a coming law regarding their policies on procurement and counseling of abortion by health departments and agencies that deliver women's health or family planning.
Mind you, I know full well that as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, the 10th Amendment means less than nothing. I am also aware of the dangers of the doctrine that, in Andrew Jackson's day, was called "nullification" and eventually led to civil war. It's no secret that various folks who consider Ron Paul a savior or a sellout slaver at the thought of a nullification crisis, as unrealistic as it sounds today. Nonetheless, I think these resolutions should be passed, in states as liberal as Massachusetts (the Defense of Marriage Act) and California (medical marijuana) and as conservative as Oklahoma (spending) and Montana (abortion).
Just so that citizens of these states can watch as federal courts shoot their democratically chosen preferences down, and Congress continues to make this a more unitary nation, where the election of a President increasingly becomes the only election that matters, because the President rules Utah and New York alike, and we continually swing between a succession of Bushes and Obamas and Jindals and Clintons, all of whom view government (for their side) as the only thing that matters.
Eventually, people might get fed up, and elect legislators, right and left, who are willing to let New York and Utah decide for themselves how they should be governed on most issues. At the very least, it might make some bastard in Washington think twice.
And, even more eventually, someone might have a look at the 9th Amendment, which reads:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
But that won't happen in my lifetime.