Should a state be allowed to veto federal laws ?

[dazzleman]

The US had a crisis with southern states wanting to nullify federal law in 1832, I believe, under President Andrew Jackson.

South Carolina wanted to nullify a tariff law that was passed by Congress.  Jackson took a strong stand and established the principle that states could not nullify laws passed by the federal government.

Of course, federal power is supposed to be limited, and some would argue that the federal government has exceeded the limits of its powers in some areas.  I think that's probably true.  The feds now use money to spread their power.  As an example, they effectively forced states to raise their drinking ages to 21 by 1985 by threatening to withhold federal highway money from any state that didn't do so.  The same threat was utilized to get most states to pass seat belt laws.  Now, they're looking to force states to redefine drunk driving as having a BAC of .08 rather than the previous standard of .10.

Financial dependence on the federal government, which virtually all states have fallen into, is very dangerous to the ultimate balance of power between the states and the federal government.

I mentioned in a post on the civil war that the concept of states' rights has largely fallen into disfavor because southern states blatantly violated the civil rights of some of their citizens for 100 years after the end of the civil war.

There are certain basic constitutional principles that must be enforced by the federal government, but beyond the powers reserved to the federal government by the constitution, the states should largely be left alone.

I don't believe in nullification however, because it can only lead to the breakup of the union, and we are much stronger and more prosperous as a union than we would be separately.

[dazzleman]

The same threat was utilized to get most states to pass seat belt laws. 

So that's why New Hampshire doesn't get highway money.

In the case of the seat belt law (as opposed to the drinking age), the federal policy was that a certain percentage of states had to pass seat belt laws or there would be stronger federal standards regarding air bags put into place, or some such thing.  I don't think New Hampshire was ultimately denied federal highway funding, though it probably doesn't get much in any case because it has little traffic flowing through it.