You are most welcome!

For me, the problem with the principal/agent contract analogy is that it breaks down. In law, the principal doesn't get to unilaterally interpret the terms of the contract.

Under American contract law, in the event of a dispute between principal and agent, some neutral 3rd party will decide the matter. Often, it will be a court of competent jurisdiction although it could be binding arbitration or mediation, etc.

With the States as 'principal' and the feds as 'agent' and the Constitution as the 'contract', who or what is the NEUTRAL 3rd party? It simply doesn't exist and the 'contract' doesn't give us the answer.

As you say, it seems ludicrous to allow the mere agent to decide. I totally agree. But, to the agent, it would seem unfair to let the principal decide.

That's why I say the analogy breaks down.

Actually, the federal government was CREATED by the States pursuant to the Constitution. As a result, the States can DISSOLVE the federal government, as well.

I suspect that's why it seems so obvious to you that the States should be able to strike down federal laws as unconstitutional. That's how I see it.

Nullification flows logically from the fact that the States created the federal government and NOT the other way around. Since the States had the power to create the federal government, they logically have the power to dissolve the federal government.

If the States have the power to dissolve the federal government, then they have the power to do something less than that, such as nullification of specific acts of the federal government.

It's not perfect but it is logical. It also clearly shows that secession is logically valid, notwithstanding Lincoln's use of force against it. That's how nullification and secession often get lumped together.

In that case, I would agree with your earlier assertion that "the judicial vs. political test is too ephemeral for much practical use."

In terms of justification for nullification, to me, the most powerful argument is the one that Bob Greenslade laid out a few days ago, and that is that the principals to the contract have sole jurisdiction to determine when the agent has violated the terms of the contract.
I know as an attorney, you see many legal conflicts with that scenario, nevertheless, it just seems ludicrous to allow the agent to call the shots. As you say, that's FWIW.

In sum, with respect to federal judicial power under Art. 3 of the US Constitution, Woods makes the argument in this article that courts can only rule on 'judicial' matters and NOT on 'political' matters. He seems to feel that nullification (the determination by a State that an act of Congress is unconstitutional) is a 'political' question that cannot be settled by the federal courts.

While I like his work a lot and he has an excellent handle on the history and meaning of the Constitution, he is not a lawyer. I am a lawyer. FWIW, the argument that something is 'political' and therefore beyond the realm of courts is rubbish. That is not the problem with the federal courts deciding the extent of the federal government's power in the cases they hear.

Courts determine disputes between entities. If a matter has reached the courts in proper form and with appropriate jurisdiction, the court can and should decide that matter; that is their job! At that point, the parties to the dispute are legally bound and, if no appeals follow, it's over between them as a legal matter. (The doctrines of 'binding precedent' and "stare decisis" have extended the power of the judiciary FAR BEYOND what it should be.)

The problem with the federal courts deciding whether the federal government has violated the US Constitution is the more obvious problem that they have a conflict of interest. Woods has explained this by asking if it would be appropriate for his mother to resolve a dispute he is having with his neighbor. Of course, it's not fair, and a decision by Mrs. Woods in favor of Tommy will not be perceived as legitimate by either the losing neighbor or the other members of the community who witness this miscarriage of justice.

To me, it's now obvious the Founders should have designed a legitimate Constitutional Review process into the system so these questions could be resolved by a body that is at least intended to be impartial. What we have today is Mrs. Woods telling us that Tommy can do whatever he wants and many of us are getting sick of it!

As soon as Marbury was decided in 1803, it should have resulted in a Constitutional amendment. Marbury resulted in the US Supreme Court becoming the unelected rulers of America for life!

Courts use the euphemism "political question" when they want to dodge an issue that is too hot to handle. The rationalization (another word for 'lie') is that some issues do not present justiciable, legal controversies but, rather, present so-called "political" issues that are so far out of the realm of the judiciary that sound policy dictates the matter NOT be resolved by the court.

It's a subjective policy matter; it's NOT a rule. As a result, it's become a dodge the court uses to avoid deciding a case whenever it wants. It's B.S. Here's a good summary of it:
http://www.answers.com/topic/political-question

An essential point that I believe should be foremost in our minds (and conversations) is the unconstitutional and destructive powers of the Federal Reserve "System". All discussions of Constitutional Amendments are superfulous and seek only to repair the damage created by the Fed. Get rid of the Fed and the "legislation" associated with its "legal" theft powers and budgets will balance themselves, and States will operate the governments (their own and that which they created in Constitutional Compact) as the Founders (and we) intended. And there will still be plenty of hope and neverending problems for us all (one cannot legislate human nature: it is always and forever the sole province of God).