Federalism and States rights. That's the answer. Gosh darned amateurs.
The
Supremacy Clause and when was Heller?
Moron.
I'm sorry, but the supremecy clause does not make state nullification unconstitutional. Ya noob. All it does is beg the question.
Waht you need to do before I make you look completely stupid in front of your friends ( is go read the nullification arguments from the Virginia Ratifying Convention. That settles the question concisely.
Notwithstanding the founders own words. In Federalist #33, Hamilton added: “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution….”
Alexander Hamilton, at New York’s convention: “I maintain that the word
supreme imports no more than this - that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government…
but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding” (emphasis added).
Thomas McKean, at the Pennsylvania convention: “The meaning [of the Supremacy Clause] which appears to be plain and well expressed is simply this, that Congress have the power of making laws upon any subject
over which the proposed plan gives them a jurisdiction, and that
those laws, thus made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be binding upon the states” (emphasis added).
James Iredell, at the First North Carolina convention: “When Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.”
I could go on and on.
Actually, you know what. Here's a great book which would do you well. Because you're clearly indoctricated.
Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution.