Nullification vs. Civil Disobedience

My reply to a blog on the Tenth Amendment Center:

     I read with interest your blog on The 10th Ammendment Center concerning what you call the similarities between civil disobedience and nullification.  I couldn’t disagree more.  Civil disobedience is just that, disobedience.  It must be undertaken with the understanding that you are breaking the law and that with it come prescribed consequences.  It may or may not be justified depending on the seriousness and reach of the injustice.  Nullification on the other hand, is nearly opposite.  It is upholding the law (often the supreme law – the Constitution) against officials edicts, court pronouncements, and acts of legislatures that they have no authority to enact.  It is thwarting usurped power that is  breaking the supreme law.
Dr. King is someone whom the nullification movement should distance themselves from with vigor.  Far from the personal purification you mention, his life was one of great personal injustice. He in all likely-hood plagiarized his doctoral thesis, his sexual mores were somewhere between Ted Kennedy and an alley cat, he sought the counsel of communists, and called for the defeat of our young men in Vietnam.  But, worst of all, he nearly ended the principle of federalism single-handedly.  He brought in federal court orders, federal enforcement powers, and northern carpetbaggers against the duly enacted laws and accepted customs, of the people of states to whom said powers were delegated by the consent of the governed.
                                                                 Carl C. Edwards