Does Kansas have the right to do this?
I tend to think that isn't the right question.
At a certain point, a populace is "supposed" to overthrow an oppressive government. At what point that occurs is academic (What is or isn't oppressive?), since rebellions tend to happen organically, and you can't just go, "THAT did it."
For example, let's say a law was being considered that banned Catholicism. Clearly 1st Amendment unconstutional to most Kansans and probably most everybody else, but this is a thought exercise. Kansas passes this type of nullity bill. Federal Catholicism ban then passes, and Supreme's say its Constitutional. Well, that would make the religion ban nationwide OK since the Supreme's have final say. However, many people would vehemently disagree. Kansas would be supporting the constitutional right of its citizens, yet at the same time, the Supreme's are saying it can't legally do that. Kansas wouldn't have the "right" to protect its citizens against ban according to the Supreme court. However, "Kansas" is really the people who live there, so obviously they would not ban their own religion.
There wouldn't be a legal means or "right" for Kansas to null the law, so that usually leaves one alternative. Violence.
This post was edited on 4/10 at 1:14 pm