Should a state be allowed to veto federal laws ?

[Lunar]

No. By the very nature of things, any federal law that's not based in the constitution is null and of no affect. A nullification act is just an officail acknowledgement of it.

Of course, the reason why there is so much disagreement over the Constitution is because it's easy to interpret a thousand different ways.

One Constitutional scholar may tell you that abortion is a right and another may tell you that the Constitution clearly outlaws it.  Considering that state legislatures are NOT Constitutional scholars, multiply the scenarios by an order of magnitude.

[Lunar]

When any two departments of government can no longer get along, the proper fix is to call for a Constitutional Amendment.

Controversial issues will find it impossible to be ammended (too much disagreement to get the necessary supermajority) and noncontroversial issues will have a hard time organizing the passive support.  It's a flawed way of governing.

State nullification just screws up federalism and would toss too many issues into chaos.

[Lunar]

Give me an example of an issue that the states wouldn't be able to agree on.

Let's go with the one I already mentioned:

Abortion

[Lunar]

No, I mean something that's based on some kind of constitutional thought.

So there's no Constitutional disagreement over the issue of abortion?

[Lunar]

None whatsoever. Just disagreement over whether or not judges are allowed to make stuff up.

That's not the ***ing disagreement and you know it.  There is a reasonable Constitutional argument extrapolated from various ammendments for a "right to privacy" that protected abortion.

Read some Constitutional literature for Christ's sake.  There have been debates going on ever since Griswold v. Connecticut about privacy in the Constitution.  Lots of extremely smart people on both sides disagree strongly about which way the Constitution points, not simply whether it's good to make stuff up or not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Should is a fun word.  However, ammendments often can be passed to fix disagreements, as I pointed out earlier.  War isn't a great option to solve the abortion question, but maybe that's just me.

[Lunar]

There is no constitutional right to privacy.

That is one view, yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The right is embeded in various ammendments, if it exists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But these state legislatures are not qualified to interpret the Constitution (so are a number of judges and you and I) when it starts getting controversial.