Thread running on a similar topic here: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=60946
The problem is that Federal law trumps state law and state constitutions (I'm not saying this is right, it's just the way it is). So any such change to our Constitution is meaningless and, potentially, politically problematic for the congress critters who introduced, voted for, and/or passed it. That being said, I don't see a thing wrong with Texas choosing not to enforce those federal laws. But that still leaves the Feds with the power to do so.
It is not particularly appetizing for those of us who have spent our entire lives as law abiding good citizens to not be a State criminal but be a Federal one.
If the Feds get a law enacted, and signed into law, we will have very little choice but to comply, pending court tests etc.
The House is not going to be sympathetic to these laws. Some House members are there because their predecessors were sympathetic, and others remember that some of their buddies lost their jobs for voting for the AWB that led to the GOP taking control of the House for the first time in decades. A great many Senators aren't going to do anything too courageous, especially those in the next election cycle. Dianne Feinstein just was re-elected to a new 6 year term; she can do anything she wants right now, but most GOP Senators and even some Dems are not anxious to have this on their record to explain to the folks back home.
Remember, "controversial" means it will cost you some votes. "Courageous" means it will cost you the election.
Our job is to make sure these people know what the stakes are, what the price will be. No threats, but like Eastwood put it, if somebody can't do the job, you get someone who can. They have to have the votes to make this happen, and we have to make sure they don't.
Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.