"The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (or Resolves) were political statements drafted in 1798 and 1799, in which the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures took the position that the federal Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional. The resolutions argued that the states had the right and the duty to declare unconstitutional acts of Congress that were not authorized by the Constitution. In doing so, they argued for states' rights and strict constructionism of the Constitution. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 were written secretly by Vice President Thomas Jefferson and James Madison respectively.
The principles stated in the resolutions became known as the "Principles of '98". Adherents argue that the states can judge the constitutionality of central government laws and decrees. The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 argued that each individual state has the power to declare that federal laws are unconstitutional and void. The Kentucky Resolution of 1799 added that when the states determine that a law is unconstitutional, nullification by the states is the proper remedy. The Virginia Resolutions of 1798 refer to "interposition" to express the idea that the states have a right to "interpose" to prevent harm caused by unconstitutional laws. The Virginia Resolutions contemplate joint action by the states." wiki
IMO the rulings against the "Resolves" by the Supreme Court of the US are not dispositive of the principles therein. The very power of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of federal or state law is based on what should have been a trivial case involving the appointment of a deputy sheriff (Marbury) of part of the District of Columbia. President John Adams appointed Marbury as a piece of Federalist "pork" on the night before Jefferson's inauguration. Secretary of State Madison cancelled the appointment and Marbury sued him in the federal courts because the case involved the government of the District of Columbia which ws federal property.
There is nothing in the US Constitution that gives the power of judicial review to the federal courts. It is claimed by the courts that the power is somehow "implied."
John Marshall, the Federalist appointed chief justice asserted that he had the right to judge the constitutionality of Madison's decision. Jefferson, for some obscure reason, (distraction perhaps) let Marshall have his way. It is possible that he did not foresee the consequences. Jefferson himself believed that all three branches of the federal government should determine the constitutionality of their actions and in the Kentucky Resolution, which he authored, he maintained the same power for the states. From this seizure of jurisdiction in history the power of judicial review has been claimed by the federal courts.
The courts have ruled in their own favor ever since? What a surprise! Lincoln did not believe in state's rights? Another surprise! pl