I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. I charge for that.
No, it isn't comparable to that at all.
All or nearly all states have a "use tax" in the same amount as their "sales tax." Almost everywhere, both of these taxes are on on the purchaser, not the seller. In the sales tax case, the vendor is required to collect that tax on the buyer for the state and hold it in trust. (The only exception I know is California, for which the tax is on the seller. The only practical difference is if the merchant late files bankruptcy, making California's dischargeable after a time if the returns were filed).
Anyway, the taxes already exist, and are on the buyer, not the seller. The questions is not whether the tax exists, but whether the seller can be compelled to collect the taxes on behalf of fifty states, a few territories, and the zillions of subdivisions.
If every city could require its own tax return, it would be so burdensome as to take out every seller other than amazon (and maybe walmart). In fact, the compliance costs would exceed the taxes for most sellers. (sidenote: prior to last month's changes, compliance cost for the US corporate tax were twice the revenue raised).
Now, at some level of sales volume, the burden becomes relatively small compared to the profits, and it stops being unreasonable, at least in principle.
Note that the prior law is *NOT* that the taxes cannot be assessed, or even that states can't require them, but rather that in the absence of Congressional action, the states can only look to their residents, not the out of state vendors.
I really don't expect that to change (in fact, it is really hard to argue the position that Wyoming can constitutionally impose an obligation on the Wyoming vendor).
Rather, there will be some rulings reached along the way to a similar result, which serve to clarify that this is Congress' job.
Twenty years ago, the sane thing to do was leave the infant internet alone and see what happened; maybe these small vendors would change the world or something.
Today, the sane Congressional solution would be to require a single monthly report and payment, with the report broken down by zip code. (and for those jurisdictions that have multiple rates within a zip code, that's just too bad. Get your act together).
To be clear, states would have to opt in to this federal program (but those that didn't would be stuck trying to collect from their own residents).
A threshold on sales for having to file would be appropriate. Given that, as the world has worked out, most sales of very small merchants occur through amazon, eBay, etc., tacking this on to their system would be a minimal cost (in fact, they could take care of it entirely, leaving no burden on the seller).
For that matter, there's not a compelling reason not to simply apply this to *all* sales for such aggregators that collect the funds; it would even be simpler.