In 2010, candidate Debra Medina campaigned for the office of governor on a Nullification platform, claiming that the state of Texas had the power to nullify federal acts it deemed unconstitutional. What was the basis for her claim, and does a nullification argument have any merit

Debra Medina claimed that nullification was possible by state laws that could neutralize federal laws. She based her claim on the 10th Amendment, which establishes that any power not constitutionally granted to the federal government can be held by the states.

Explanation:

The Constitution doesn´t enable the nullification of federal laws by the states, and several academics have stated that it could be illegal since the Supremacy Clause pronounces federal laws as the supreme national law. So nullification would overthrow the constitutional interpretation held for 200 years.

Let us also remember that Gov. Rick Perry, who supported nullification, had already skipped the nullification issue by starting a debate about secession. This debate is a reminder of the time when state rejection of racial integration had to be stopped by the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

the magna carta is a peace treaty between the king and the rebels. it was made because the the barons captured london in may 1215, so the king was forced to make a treaty with them.the document is written in latin.

hope this and plz mark as brainliest!

well it depends i think people around the world are coming around to gay marriage. but if you are talking abortion then wow, so much to talk about. such as men thinking they have the right to choose if women can, the fact there are health concerns if the women can't get one, and many more arguments to discuss. so i would definitely say abortion would be a much more interesting topic.