There are several questions here, all relating to the different visions of the Constitution advanced, or at least implicit, in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions and the Supreme Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were authored by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively, in response to the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts by the Federalist-dominated Congress. Both resolutions asserted that the laws were unconstitutional, and the Kentucky Resolution went so far as to say that states had the power to nullify "all unauthorized [i.e., unconstitutional] acts." This argument was based on a so-called "compact" theory of government that emphasized the power of the states in establishing the federal government via the Constitution.
The Supreme Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison, on the other hand, also established a remedy for unconstitutional laws. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the majority, ruled that a portion of the federal Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. In so doing, he asserted the power of judicial review, claiming for the federal courts the power to render unconstitutional laws null and void. Marshall did not comment on the power of the states asserted in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, though a later decision in McCulloch v. Maryland asserted the supremacy of the federal government over state laws. Judicial review offered a different remedy to the problem of checking unconstitutional laws than nullification, the implications of which tended to place sovereignty in the states rather than the federal government.