Nullification? Judicial Review?

Nullification

The supremacy clause goes no distance to contradicting an alleged state power to nullify federal laws that violate the constitution.

Neither does anything in Article III, ignoring the invisible ink.

On the other hand, the assertion of such a power has no shred of text in its favor.

Nor is there, according to Wikipedia, any record of such a thing being asserted as constitutional either in Philadelphia or in the state ratifying conventions.

The appeal to the 10^th Amendment is pure bluff.

As for the power of judicial review of federal law by the Supremes, a power some conventioneers assumed was being granted is not necessarily a power that was in fact granted.

Not even though the same view was put forward by many at state ratifying conventions.

It is certainly not unheard of for supporters of a bill, law, or other measure to be simply wrong about what is in it - or, for that matter, what is not in it.

Why assume those favoring (or opposing!) the constitution were immune to such error?

Why go to the even more absurd extreme of supposing such error to prevail over the text and actually determine the “true” or “real” meaning of the thing?

Or are we to believe the power of judicial review of both state and federal actions by the federal courts is something perhaps hidden in the inherent nature of the judicial power that is ascribed to the federal courts by the constitution without definition?

Really?

Something so controversial and questionable that Jefferson wrote of it as erecting a judicial dictatorship, somewhere, though I forget where?

More bluff, is it?

Still no text.

Invisible ink.

Hasn't the constitution always been in exile?

Aren't those who claim to want it back arrant hypocrites?