You initiated this discussion with an assertion. You stated:

"Do you folks realize that state nullification of federal laws is explicitly against the U.S. Constitution (Supremacy Clause)?"

I cited some direct quotes that refute your reading of this Clause. Unless you can show that the quotes were false or this Clause means something totally different than what it actually says, your assertion crumbles into dust.

"""""It seems to me that a major reason the Constitution has kept the ship of state afloat is the existence of an independent judiciary as a co-equal branch of our federal government. It is easy today to see the need for an independent judiciary, with the authority to enforce the terms of a written constitution, but back in 1787, when the Founding Fathers were drafting our Constitution, it was an entirely novel concept. I believe that the creation of an independent constitutional court, with the authority to declare unconstitutional laws passed by the state or federal legislatures, is probably the most significant single contribution the United States has made to the art of government.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776, one of the reasons he gave for the need to declare independence from Great Britain was that King George III "ha[d] made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries." The drafters of the Constitution addressed this in Article III of our Constitution, which confers upon the judiciary life-long tenure during good behavior, and contains a prohibition against diminution of compensation while in office. Article III judges can only be removed from office through the mechanism of impeachment.

…Without an independent Judiciary, the Constitution may not have survived to, as Chief Justice Taft said, "secur[e] the blessings of individual liberty to all the people of the United States under a government of law and order." And much of the credit is due to the foresight of the drafters of these Charters."""""

— Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s Rededication Remarks at the rededication of the National Archives (September 17, 2003)

Behind all this nonsense about "nullification" what you are actually suggesting is that the states should have the authority to declare a certain Federal law unconstitutional. Of course, the idea that we should allow anyone at the state government level decide what is and is not constitutional is preposterous.

We have a federal judiciary whose job it is to interpret law. We have a government based on laws and not on men, and the SCOTUS is the embodiment of the judicial review of cases that have bearing on the meaning of the verbiage in the Constitution.

Are you truly suggesting that you would want states to be able to subvert judicial review at the Federal level? Are you truly suggesting that we should just eliminate the SCOTUS and instead have judicial review take place at the state level? And who is to decide which state is right in a dispute between states or in the case when a state is suing the Federal government? What is your mechanism for those causes? The truth is, the U.S. Constitution lays out the judiciary and the power of the judiciary in the 3rd Article. Article 1 is Legislative, Article 2 is Executive, Article 3 is Judiciary.

Again, you can have the idea that states are entitled to judicial review of Federal law, but the final arbiter of Constitutionality is and has been the SCOTUS. And if you want to do away with the SCOTUS or render it moot in cases of Federal over-reach then you are fighting against the very concept of freedom and liberty as outlined in the Constitution. As such, in the Preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice…"

ESTABLISH JUSTICE.

That is what the judiciary does. Sorry to say, but your opinions are not based in fact, with the exception of the fact that you are seeking to undermine the legal system of the United States of America that has provided Americans with liberty and justice for 200 years.