***States do not have the power to decide what is constitutional and what is not. That power is vested in the Supreme Court per Article III which gives it jurisdiction in this area.***
It’s done a fabulous job hasn’t it?
Nullification would be unconstitutional if the Supreme Court has a monopoly on interpretation. Article III says:
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...”
While this grants the Supreme Court the ability to review the Constitutionality of all laws, it doesn’t prohibit the states from reviewing it either. On a philosophical level, why would the states agree to a contract which they have no say about? If the federal government passes a law, how does it make sense that the federal government (though a different branch) gets to determine the Constitutionality of the law, as a final say? It has a vested interest in giving itself more power.
***It isn’t. The court system is.***
Gee, I didn’t realize the court wasn’t part of the federal government.
More often than not? Yes.
While this grants the Supreme Court the ability to review the Constitutionality of all laws, it doesn’t prohibit the states from reviewing it either.
It does in Article III, Section 2: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
On a philosophical level, why would the states agree to a contract which they have no say about?
They have a lot of say about it - in Congress, through the courts, through their legislatures and the amendment process.