Final answer:
Nullification's history is marred with morally questionable uses, such as during the Nullification Crisis, but its contemporary application in cases like marijuana legalization and handgun regulation gives it a different context. Morality in law evolves, and nullification today can serve to reflect changing societal norms and the protection of state interests.
Step-by-step explanation:
The debate around nullification and its moral legitimacy has evolved over time. Historically, nullification has been associated with the Nullification Crisis, during which Southern states attempted to void federal tariffs, invoking state rights in defense of an economy based on slavery—an action widely regarded as morally bankrupt. However, in contemporary society, issues such as marijuana legalization and gun regulation have redefined nullification, as states sometimes take action to resist or not enforce federal laws based on differing moral or practical judgments.
The context and application of nullification can significantly affect its moral implications. While it's true that the history of nullification has a morally questionable past, the current use in instances such as federal and state conflicts over policies shows that nullification can sometimes reflect a state's exercise of rights to protect its citizens' preferences or interests. Moreover, the role of morality in law suggests that societies evolve and laws change to reflect new moral consensus, as with the repeal of Prohibition by the 21st Amendment.
In assessing whether the moral bankruptcy of nullification in the past compromises it today, it is crucial to recognize the different contexts and principles at stake in each situation. As with many legal and constitutional questions, the answers may not be absolute but instead depend on the specific circumstances, reflecting changes in social standards and the balance between personal liberties and collective values.