Assuming that the issue so near your heart is within the scope of the delegated powers of Article 1, Section 8. If not, it may just be resistance to tyranny.
Let's say the government were to overstep its bounds and implement in law such a monstrosity as to bring about the death of 40 million Americans. Is there no point at which the people have an obligation to resist?
Let's say there is a dispute over whether it's within their power or not. What then? Our Constitution provides for that in Article 3:
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
The SCOTUS is the proper and delegated authority over such disputes. The only resort past that is revolution. But let's not forget what we were talking about--the introduction of a bill in the House of Representatives. This is not exactly tyranny. It is our system. To walk out when you don't like the debate is anarchic.
Let's say the government were to overstep its bounds and implement in law such a monstrosity as to bring about the death of 40 million Americans. Is there no point at which the people have an obligation to resist?
There is definitely a point at which the people have a right to resist. That should not be confused to be some sort of legal, constitutional right. It is an extraconstitutional appeal to natural rights. In our system, a republican is supposed to be prudent, and to try all available means--Congressional act, Presidential intervention, appeal to the Courts, state conventions, the press--and failing those, to take what actions are deemed necessary. There is no handbook for when that is just or not. Our Founders made their declaration and are judged by it--favorably. The slave states made their declarations and are judged by it--unfavorably. And imho, rightly so on both counts.