Re: Let's discuss Nullification and Secession again. They are related.
The best presentation I ever read on the topic of Nullification and Secession was from the masterpiece of President Jefferson Davis, The Rise of the Confederate Government. I believe it was in his farewell address to the US Senate where he delivered his famous dictum of how nullification and secession are different.
Nullification is when a subdivision of a body politic who has granted power to a larger affiliation has determined that larger affiliate has assumed powers not granted. That subdivision formerly re-establishes precisely what power it granted by nullifying or undoing whatever assumption of power was made within its territory. (NOTE: Davis makes the interesting point that a grant of power is different than a delegated power. An example is the chief executive of the States is called governor, a title not associated with developing foreign policy. The States were never delegated such authority by their State Constitutions. The States, therefore, explicitly granted power rather than delegated certain powers they implicitly had to the super-State confederation).
Secession is when a body politic withdraws or rescinds all granted and delegated powers and once again assumes its sovereign status as an independent State. It is important to note that when the former colonies of England won their independence from the Crown in the Treaty of Paris, they were not recognized collectively. The former colonies were individually recognized as separate and independent sovereign States. And according to the US Constitution all States subsequently added to the Union were equal to the original. Equal in what way? Equal in the inherent and inalienable sovereignty.
To summarize: Nullification is an act within a larger body politic. Secession is the act of a sovereign.
The enemies of freedom leading up to the War of Northern Aggression pretended the ratification of the US Constitution established the principle of so-called "popular sovereignty," meaning the States gave up their sovereignty. Not only was this never an explicit forfeit, many of the States ratification documents explicitly retained their sovereignty in ratifying the US Constitution AND had words very similar to what became the 10th Amendment. In addition, the principle of so-called "popular sovereignty," denies the founding principle of the Declaration of Independence that the people have the right to alter of abolish their government by saying the people of NYC can trump the will of the people of Charleston. To suppose this to be true is to suppose the Founding Fathers fought and won a war of independence with the super-power of the day only to give up their hard fought and dearly paid for Liberty to be enslaved by numbers when all the evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion; that the United States is not a homogenous entity but a heterogeneous collection of sovereign States and Founding Father's wrote so eloquently in the Federalist Papers against the dangers of numbers and democracy in favor of the republic, which is not central or national in character but federal in nature.
"No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
-- Patrick Henry