Sure you can - it's rather simple. The Supremacy clause states, 'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ...'
Unless you have a delegated power preventing a state from exercising a power, per the 10th (superseding any prior verbiage) such power remains with the state.
Non-Sequitur will now quote one of John Marshall's logical demarches to you, from Marbury vs. Madison or Ex Parte Bollmann, etc., etc., etc., etc., prominently featuring Marshall's novel theory -- which he contradicted when he was a ratification convention delegate in Virginia in 1788 -- that the federal government needn't respect the 10th Amendment, but can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, however it wants, praise be the federal government.
All of which is buncombe, of course, and proof that, on the bench as anywhere else, "personnel is policy".
Which suits Non-Sequitur just fine, since he finds the confines of Original Intent so ..... stifling. I mean, the poor man can't burn down Georgia, until he gets some relief from the party-poops who sat in the Philadelphia Convention.
Obviously, if a power that's forbidden to the federal government is involved or if the federal government oversteps its authority, federal law isn't supreme in that area. But if a state simply decides that federal law doesn't apply to it, the state is in violation of the Constitution.
I don't argue that the federal government is sovereign or that states may not be "sovereign" in certain areas, simply that a state that agreed to the Constitution would have a hard time logically asserting an absolute sovereignty of the sort that lentulus claims for the states.
Some have spoken of a "dual sovereignty" under our system. That's okay with me, but it's a far cry from what lentulus is arguing.