What is your analysis of this line of reasoning

Calhoun’s fight with Andrew Jackson over the Tariff Act (1828) is but one example of where states have tried to assert that they should play a central role in deciding the constitutionality of federal action. Remember that there was a strain of this from the Harford Convention (1814).
Even today, we see arguments regarding nullification on topics as diverse as guns, immigration, marijuana and abortion. What is your analysis of this line of reasoning? Do you think that nullification is a legitimate approach to enforcing America’s constitutional principles? (It should be noted that the Court ruling in Dobbs v Jackson 2022, has essentially removed the abortion question from the nullification debate for now. The Court’s overturning of Roe v Wade threw the question of abortion directly back to the states. However, in the years between Roe and Dobbs, there were arguments made that states should nullify the Court’s ruling protecting abortion rights.)
Consider the positions of both Calhoun and Jackson. Which side do you agree with and why? Regardless of which position you endorse; you should clearly delineate the limits of this approach. What are the political or legal consequences that follow from the pathway you are endorsing? Finally, what role should the Supreme Court play in this debate?
Your paper must be 1-2 pages in length and follow APA guidelines (double-spaced, 12pt. Times New Roman font, one-inch margins).
Please save your assignment as a Word document (.docx)