I disagree, if the law is good there should be very few who would dissent to it: e.g. how many people think there should be no law prohibiting murder?
Virtually none, because it is universally recognized as immoral.
How many people think there should be no federal law prohibiting, say, drugs?
Quite a few — indeed you cannot be a constitutionalist and a supporter of the War on Drugs simultaneously, precisely because the justifications for them are rooted in Wickard (saying that congress may regulate intrastate commerce because it impacts interstate commerce); they [the USSC] has even said that noncommerce is, in like manner, under the purview of congress (Raich).
In one of the most notorious [and wrongfully applied] jury nullifications of all time, OJ's jury found that murder was just fine, as long as a white cop peripherally connected to his investigation might have used the word nigger once in the last ten years.
Racist juries in some states routinely acquitted Klansmen. They also saw no "universality" of murder as instrinsically evil, as long as untermenschen were being killed.
We have well-recognized ways to repeal unjust laws. We have well-recognized ways to modify or overturn anti-Constitutional laws. In the routine practice of those refinements, juries are not, and should not be, involved, except possibly to highlight when the corrective reforms are needed and effect them in the proper channels.
Advocating that every citizen be a legislature unto himself is an idea abhorrent to the very meaning of law, and would have been justly deprecated by the Framers as mob rule.