Article V is precisely the means to take ownership of lives, liberties, and happiness. There is no higher earthly power than decisions made by the people in their sovereign capacity.
Regarding judicial opinions that supplant Article I, the answer is in Article III or a convention of the states. When a statute is found to be “unconstitutional,” the statute or amendment is sent back to the legislature that created it. It is up to the legislature to either correct the law, or do nothing. In any event, no court opinion can have the force of nationwide law.
State by state or municipal nullification is a dead end. It is what sanctuary cities do.
No, state nullification of unconstitutional federal acts is not a “sanctuary city.”
It is what many states have just done to reject unconstitutional refusal to repel invasion (Art I, Sec 15, Cl 15) and is supported by the presumptions of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, and the Ninth and the Tenth Amendments.
I have no problem with an Article V convention as long as it’s done right. But I do have a problem with those that insist that constitutional state sovereignty cannot be exercised in the meantime. That is denying the very constitution you purport to uphold.
Saying state nullification is a “dead end” is like saying the fight for freedom is a dead end. Tell that to the rag-tag colonists against the most powerful nation in the world. The fight for freedom has no guarantees but is worth the battle. Get on board.