[FirstPrinciple]

The purpose of nullification was to stop federal tyranny on the states. In the first half of the 19th century it was used routinely, mostly in the north. States would simply ignore federal laws, or state govt would pass laws protecting states against laws that they found to be oppressive. The Constitution is a voluntary contract. States could voluntarily leave the contract, just like countries withdraw from treaties. But, I don't think this Supreme Court understands that, neither does the legislature and definitely not the Executive that frequently writes bureaucratic dictats against the law.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You are entirely wrong about the nature of the Constitution. It is dissolvable only by amendment. The Union is permanent and perpetual. No state can unilaterally act to change the Union which would be the result of withdrawal.

Read Madison's letter to Hamilton wrt conditional ratification when that was being fought over at the NY state constitutional ratification convention. He states very clearly that the Union cannot be dissolve by one states or eleven states actions. Ratification was once and forever according to all the major writers of the Constitution and all the Founders were appalled at the thought of dissolving the Union. It was their greatest fear knowing as they did sure destruction of freedom would be the result.

Nullification was a never an option and never acceptable to any states outside Virginia and Virginia Jr. All the rest rejected the concept. Like I said check Andy Jackson on nullification when the idiocy raised it absurd head in South Carolina. And he was a South Carolinian and no friend of federal power.

There was no "federal tyranny" during the first half of the 18th century. The federal government was tiny and powerless. States ignoring it would be like murderers ignoring the law against killing. Just cause it happens doesn't justify it.

States' legislatures have no power to pass laws "protecting states against [federal]laws." Such indicate a total misunderstanding of the Constitution as the Law of the Land. If that were true there would be no Constitution.