"If I recall correctly, it was Hamilton, defending a loyalist in New York immediately after the Revolutionary War, who first argued that his client's guilt or innocence under the law which he was being charged was irrelevant because the law itself was unjust. Hamilton won the case. And that was several years prior to the Constitution."
All I'm saying is that Hamilton would have made that argument regardless of the law to which he was subject, and he was not for the Constitution so much as a strong federal government, period. I apologize for the confusion regarding your point--for some reason, in my sleep-deprived state I thought you were pointing to Hamilton as some sort of Constitutional advocate, where upon rereading seems you were just pointing out that jury nullification was around pre-Constitution.