What is the theory that federal law should be limited and a state government has the right to nullify a federal law within that stated?

Answer 1

The answer is two-fold. When the Constitution was ratified, Law was enforced only at the state level by Constables and Sheriffs deputies. States are soveign, and the federal government only superseded state sovereignty on international waters, federal territories, Post Offices, etc. The Legislature has the power to act as a check on the state's own executive branch (governor, peace officers, tax collectors, etc), and can therefor nullify any federal law or international treaty enforcement uniformly within the state.

The other issue raised over the years was the very limited power of Congress to actually legislate. Originally, only three groups of laws were authorized in Article I: piracy, counterfeiting, and treason. In order to enact a federal law against terrorism, Congress would have to draw from the enabling authority under the "piracy" clause, and the courts have accepted this in precedent.

Serving on a jury, you also have the right to nullify any law, but only for that one case. Juries acquitted the accused many times under the fugitive slave law and alcohol prohibition. In more recent years, many juries have refused to acquit medical marijuana patients or people who've made small paperwork errors. Bystanders are acquitted, rather than being convicted as "accomplices."

In short, if you are serving on a jury, and you have any doubts at all as to whether or not the accused has actually harmed anyone else, you should acquit that individual. If you feel that the law is being misapplied or that the prosecutor is not following the intent of the Legislature, or that a law is excessive, you should assert your Right of Conscience and acquit, even if other jurors demand strict adherence to their interpretation of jury instructions.