It’s great to have many perspectives in politics. The problem with what they have been doing is the same problem as what the left does.
We made an agreement regarding the nature and character of the central government in 1787, and what role the sates would play, and how the rules of the road could be changed. It does not matter where one fits on the political spectrum, or the ideology of the party in power, or what a particular justice happens to belive about a living constitution. They do not have the power to ignore it, or change it at will with abstracts, as they were not given that power — that went to the states.
When centrists, or even those on the left want to start respecting that agreement, then they will have earned my respect. Until then, I don’t care who or what they are, it is just another name for tyrant.
I just want to add that when the constitution was ratified, it was not done by the state legislatures. There was a special election of delegates in each state for the sole purpose of ratification. Therefore, the constitution is a political agreement with the people, not necessarily with the states, that was recognized as LAW, not some abstract conjecture.
This sheds a little bit of light on what might have been going through the minds of those participating in the whiskey rebellion, what they thought about the meaning of enumerated powers and who decides what is constitutional. Of course I do not recommend violence. I am just pointing out that states are not the only entities with nullification powers, although it probably lends more credibility to the cause for a state legislature to be involved than civil disobedience alone.