"Nullify", a term you've yet to actually define, despite allusions and implications about what you think it means... that being a "constitutional right" of a what amounts to a unilateral veto power.
As I've said before, which you keep ignoring, "nullification" as a theoretical strategy, is simply states ignoring and resisting federal laws in which they believe said law is unconstitutional.
Sometimes the states are right. But not always. In 1832 SC was wrong about the tariff. In 2020 CA and others were wrong about declaring itself a "sanctuary state" for illegal immigrants, not only defying federal immigration, but obstructing the proper execution of constitutional federal immigration law.
All power relies on force, but not all power exercised is authoritatively legal.
The States, being the CREATORS of the Union, the Federation, the United States, are Superior to it....
Actually, the Union, the nation called the USA was a creation of the People at every single stage of development, because they were represented by lawmakers of their choosing, and the Constitution itself was ratified by elected representatives of the people, and in some cases directly by the people via a referendum.
The Constitution is supreme, as agreed to by the states and people who created it. Which means that when it prohibits the states from certain actions (coining money, making treaties amongst themselves or foreign states, etc. etc.), that is the law. Same goes when it prohibits the Congress, or the federal government in general, from certain action.
Each State, Individually, can nullify any Law made by Congress, they've been doing that....
https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-states-can-nullify-some-federal-laws-not-all
"Nullify", a term you've yet to actually define, despite allusions and implications about what you think it means... that being a "constitutional right" of a what amounts to a unilateral veto power.
As I've said before, which you keep ignoring, "nullification" as a theoretical strategy, is simply states ignoring and resisting federal laws in which they believe said law is unconstitutional.
Sometimes the states are right. But not always. In 1832 SC was wrong about the tariff. In 2020 CA and others were wrong about declaring itself a "sanctuary state" for illegal immigrants, not only defying federal immigration, but obstructing the proper execution of constitutional federal immigration law.
All power relies on force, but not all power exercised is authoritatively legal.
The States, being the CREATORS of the Union, the Federation, the United States, are Superior to it....
Here's a PDF to help understand that Fact:: https://archive.org/details/republicofrepubl00insage/page/n7/mode/1up
Actually, the Union, the nation called the USA was a creation of the People at every single stage of development, because they were represented by lawmakers of their choosing, and the Constitution itself was ratified by elected representatives of the people, and in some cases directly by the people via a referendum.
The Constitution is supreme, as agreed to by the states and people who created it. Which means that when it prohibits the states from certain actions (coining money, making treaties amongst themselves or foreign states, etc. etc.), that is the law. Same goes when it prohibits the Congress, or the federal government in general, from certain action.
Ok, so are you being redundant, or are you trying to be condescending???
The ""States"" are their Peoples, their Citizens.....
So when it Forbids a thing to be Done, then That's It, that's the LAW, right???
Is this part LAW:: ""no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state""
How about this part:: ""nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states""
and this:: ""or parts of states""
No, surely those aren't any type of Valid Law, otherwise West Virginia wouldn't exist....
Because:: ""without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.""
Because although the U.S. Govt approved, the Virginia Legislature has not given its approval....
But I suppose we're just gonna Ignore such things....
Oh, but it's the SEMICOLON that's the problem not the MORON reading the Law....
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Second Amendment comes to mind.....