It is important to remember that a federal agency enforces its laws on the individual directly and not hierarchically through the State. (The federal government cannot dictate that a State implement a federal program, but can condition receipt of federal funds on the passage of some program on the State level.) The State enforces its laws separately on the individual.
Under preemption, when federal law conflicts with State law, the federal law “preempts” or supersedes the State law. The federal government can "occupy the field" - meaning federal law is so extensive, there is no room for supplemental State law.
The tools at the State's disposal are to refuse to accept money with strings that enlarge federal power into areas like welfare, education etc. where there are no legitimate enumerated federal powers. The State can also challenge in court whether the federal law is a legitimate use of an enumerated power. It can challenge whether a treaty can enlarge federal power or whether the federal government is limited in its ability to implement provisions of a treaty to its own enumerated powers.
Personaly, I wish the Western States would challenge the federal retention and conversion of public land (land surveyed and open for settlement) into federally owned land. That might knock down their collateral. It certainly would lift a pall of oppression off the use and development of natural resources in Western communities.
Then, of course, there are amendments to the Constitution (God forbid.) Article V - Amendment "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
You either don't "get it" or you're in the tank with the federales who have contemptuously violated and repeatedly defaulted on their part of the compact. They have broken out of their Constitutional chains and you don't seem at all concerned about it. Slap 'em with a lawsuit? Har! The federales need to be taken to the woodshed or at the very least, read the riot act and you want to take 'em to court. That's rich.
BTW and FWIW, I choose option #2. You will not be a part of the solution because you are part of the problem.