This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
This is flatly incompatible with state nullification.
You do realize that the Supremacy clause can only operate concerning the foregoing powers previously granted don't you?
It's not the carte blanche everyone believes it to be.
That a law limited to such objects as may be authorised by the constitution, would, under the true construction of this clause, be the supreme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void.
St. George Tucker View of the Constitution
Such a power would allow the federal entity to define its own limits, and that I do not believe the Founders were foolish enough to do.
-----
This is flatly incompatible with state nullification.
Following Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation :
Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.
This is called the Rule of Exclusion. Anything not included is therefore excluded.
Please show me the word 'nullification' in the Constitution.
That is the key phrase. Those laws which may be ignored by the states are those which were not made in pursuance of the Constitution but instead, dispite the Constitution.