Nope.
By threatening to withhold funds, the way they do right now.
How many States in recent decades have eschewed funds that were tied to legislation that required them to implement certain policies?
Snapped your seat belt shut lately?
Let me explain something to you.
If a state decided to opt out of your system, but also decided it was going to have a 20% flat income tax, a 2 percent sales tax, and some system of property tax (in otherwords, nearly the same tax burden we have now) but all that money was going to stay in state, not go to the rest of the country.
Not a single state would opt into your system, they wouldn't need the funds because if they were doing the old burden but all at state level, and they rejected the federal burden, why, then they would be self-sufficient, they wouldn't need Uncle Sam to pay for schools, or roads, or renovating 100 year old GM & 0 Terminals.
But the tables are turned with the NRST. The states will be remitting grossly more than they will ever receive. It would then be the states with the power to withold money from the feds if the feds don't comply.
Massachussetts: " No money from us until you pass a gay marriage law."
California: "No money from us until you legalize marijuana."
New York: "No money from us until you ban all assault weapons"