What is even more interesting is that in this case the Southern states, to a man, would have denied that the states had such rights. Chase was talking about the right of the states to establish their own laws and court proceedings, including the right to require a writ of habeas corpus in fugitive slave cases. What Chase said was, "We have a right to have our state laws obeyed. We don't mean to resist federal authority. Just or unjust laws properly administered will be respected. If dissatisfied we will go to the ballot box and redress our wrongs. But we have rights which the federal government must not invade, rights superior to its power, on which our sovereignty depends; and we do mean to assert these rights against all tyrannical assumption of authority. I know not what will be done in Champaign County. The courts will determine that. But I do know that if the marshals who violated our laws are indicted and the writs for their arrests are placed in the hands of our state officials they shall be executed. And we expect the federal government to submit."
Abide by unjust, but valid laws? Rely on the ballot box? Work through the courts? Chase may have echoed some - some - of the arguements of the Southern leaders but note how his choices for redress differed. Law vs. rebellion.