No, I'm basing this off of South Carolina's position back in the 1830s. Their position was that they were superior to the Constitution.
There was a tenable argument that secession was constitutional, but nullification as envisioned by SC back then IMO was clearly unconstitutional because it is inherently an attack on the Constitution, that reduces it to mere words on a paper with no force. By contrast, secession requires a state to abandon the whole Constitution if it will abandon any one thing.
Perhaps Dred Scott and Plessy were bad decisions morally, but I'm not sure they were so horrible purely legally given the state of the law at those times. Certainly there were much better logical arguments supporting those decisions than a hypothetical decision that South Carolina-style nullification was constitutional (no such decisions happened of course).
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.