There anti nothing wrong with Nation-States merely how they are behaving to give up their sovereignty and with it the independent and self-governing rights of their people. To that end you have a growing political class in the national levels of government and that of the United Nations to blame.

If world peace is to come at the cost of liberty and self-determination then perhaps its not such a grand idea?

Monoculturism is needed in places where one government rules over cultural and domestic matter or you have infighting and permanent hate bases division forming where peoples cultural values come into conflict with regard to what ever power happens to control the government imposing its culture on other people.

The only way you can manage multiculturalism is too have the different cultures self-governing in all respects of government which effects their culture.
In the United States we can do that if cultures each dominate their own state, or locality with in a state are left with great autonomy in such matters. Conflict avoidance is based upon live and let live tolerance, which in the area of culture which can extends in to matters of governments, such tolerance can only exist when you don't have to live under anther cultures government.
Otherwise follow an old part of human nature and wisdom for those who wold ignore it: "When in Rome do as the Romans"

It's a important practice because it avoids reasons for inter-cultural warfare which tends to develop when conflicting cultures battle over the control of a government to impose their own on each other.
If the north and south had trusted each other to leave each other alone there would have been no reason for a Civil war or secession for that matter. It is precisely because they lived under a common government that enabled them too exploit and hurt each other that the South finally called it quits and left in 1860, rather than be abused by northern values, who controlled the federal government.

We can not abolish the separate state governments nor deny them their rights to resolve this problem because this problem is exactly a matter of our rights and their rights combined. It was never the point of our government to remain united at all cost, it was the point of government to protect the rights of the people and their states from usurpation such as this!
Unity that comes at the cost of liberty misses the whole point of government, and instead embraces only the inherit(but sometimes necessary) evil that comes from government.

That is what multiculturalism is and what multiculturalism means and does to a nation and people. It is not a bad thing, merely a natural thing that should be managed appropriately in the form separation as not to allow it to become a bad thing. But make no mistake Multiculturalism when forced to live under one roof leads to strife, violence, and civil war.

Nation states are dangerous and self-serving. It is doubtful that they will survive the sweeping changes to our society, brought about by technology. We are experiencing a crisis in perception. If we can't recognize the problem how are we going to fix it?
Nation states are a relatively modern attempt at governance. They have grown into unmanegeable artifices of an age gone by. It is time for "We The People" to move on. The more we can recognize the problem the faster we can move on. The faster that we can go the less drastic the effects will be. It is time to say goodbye to the monoculturism of the status quo and hello to a brave new world of individual freedom. The best is yet to come.

What would be the point of suing the federal government, it will just go to federal court where the exclusive agents of the federal government the injustices will award themselves more power. Our system of checks and balances have demonstratively broken down, and while I support any honest attempt to give the court and the government they serve a chance to right themselves, I would be a fool if I though that should be expected to work.

At the end of the day we are talking about power, absolute and unlimited power which has the habit of corrupting all that hold such power including but not limited to the the justices of the Federal Courts, who weld such amazing power to rewrite not only the laws of the united States but the Constitutions of the United States as well. It's hard to imagine how such amazing unchallengeable power could fail to corrupt those who weld it.

State governments should start looking at nullification for court rulings like Row VS. Wade and others which have no basis in the Constitution for their associated usurpation of the Rights of the People and their States.

It appears from cases like New York vs. United States that Federal govt. can circumvent State invocation of 10th Ammendment standing when federal money is involved. Possible answer could be to replicate federal withholding process imposed on all employers within the State. Some States have an income tax but burden taxpayers with two income taxes. Creating choice to employers between State employer identification number rather than Federal could be first step. Second would be employee furnishment obligation of both, a choice between Federal withholding or having 90% tax money withheld routed to States instead. Best would be 80% county, 10% State and Federal but thats beyond whats suggested herein. Whats relevant is that it evidences new contract as well as intent/will of the people by way of signatures. States can provide employers with information packet containing form which operates in lieau of w-4 form and fulfills prima facie evidence of Employer requirement to furnish w-4. Federal counterclaims can be challenged by Writs of Prohibition and Certiari after all States as one have ratified whatever action agreed upon re: right of money routed thru States first. Once matter settled in the negative States can revisit the ratification of the 16th Ammendment and produce the evidence not all States truly ratified as Federal govt. by way of Alexander Philander Knox falsified govt. record by unlawful conversion and misrepresentation of some States no vote into yes votes. Its a frivilous argument when raised by 14th Ammendment persons,but not States or 10th Ammendment standing people. Threat of income tax invaldation helps States leverage against countermeasure not to ciculate money into states. Income tax may be a gamble States are willing to make to uphold the 10th Ammendment. Bottom line is to figure out how to reclaim power of the purse. Limitation of money fosters constraints.

Will these resolutions result in lawsuits in Federal Courts? The Fed is just going to ignore these resolutions and continue to stomp on and take away our individual freedoms.

Will states actually stand up or will they just fall into line when the Fed threatens them?

I have a strong feeling we are headed for a civil war!!!