1. If nullification is a valid doctrine, then the Supremacy Clause is meaningless.
2. If nullification were widely practiced, we would end up with a situation where the federal government proposed laws, and the states decided at their leisure which to enforce and which to ignore. This would rapidly become an inconsistent mess, a la the Articles of Confederation.
3. Jefferson seems to have forgotten about strict constructionism when the opportunity presented itself to purchase Louisiana. Where does the specifically enumerated Presidential power to acquire land appear in Article II?
1. If nullification is a valid doctrine, then the Supremacy Clause is meaningless.
Not at all. Art VI makes clear that ALL levels of government in the USA are pledged to support the basic principle of our Constitution; - our rights to life, liberty, property.
2. If nullification were widely practiced, we would end up with a situation where the federal government proposed laws, and the states decided at their leisure which to enforce and which to ignore. This would rapidly become an inconsistent mess, a la the Articles of Confederation.
Wrong again. The feds have provisions to enforce their [Constitutional] laws. -- And State & local officials are bound by oath to support those laws. Checks & balances would be restored by nullification.
3. Jefferson seems to have forgotten about strict constructionism when the opportunity presented itself to purchase Louisiana. Where does the specifically enumerated Presidential power to acquire land appear in Article II?
You are nitpicking the issue. Jefferson took advantage of the french in a once in a lifetime opportunity, & Congress approved.. Why knock it?
As to number 3, Jefferson was actually aware that he did not have the constitutional authority to buy Louisiana. He actually drafted a constitutional amendment that he was prepared to submit to the Congress and the states. Because the deal was widely applauded by politicians and the public, he was convinved to forego the amendment, and to just do the deal - contrary to his instincts.