Unfortunately all this money will cause many well-qualified candidates a big pause, and perhaps a decision agains running in the next election. After all, real leaders want to help our country solve its problems, not spend hours per day raising funds to counter attack ads and lies. I hope the Supreme Court Justices take a good look at what their Citizens United decision did to our pool of candidates, and make a quick reversal. Money does affect elections, even if the rich don't buy every win. If only Rove puppets can affort to run, our democracy is in trouble.
True, you have added that nullification was used against the Fugitive Slave Acts, and might I add it was still used post Dred Scott for the same purpose. But you erroneously contend it was used to protect slavery, which it never was, as the Constitution and federal law declared slavery legal.
The first application of nullification was in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions in 1798 in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. It was later used against the Embargo Act and threatened during the War of 1812, all well before the Civil War.
Nullification is also not something that has lain dormant since 1950. Nullification was abused (the only instance of its abuse I can find) even after the Supreme Court declared itself infallible through continued segregation. So for better or for worse, the Supreme Court can have its opinion, but let them come enforce it.
Even before ObamaCare, states have been nullifying federal laws on drug use, with over a dozen having done so after the 2005 Gonzalez v Reich decision, which ruled no State could legalize marijuana, even for medical reasons. Even if you don't recognize that as nullification, half the states have refused to comply with the Bush era REAL ID Act as well. In states that have refused to comply, REAL ID has been unenforceable, with the "deadline" for implementation being pushed back constantly.
Pages