So if the Alabama State Supreme Court had ruled that conscription was unconstitutional and refused to allow the state to provide troops to the Davis regime then that would have been OK? What if the Louisiana state Supreme Court ruled that the confederate tariff was protectionist in nature and unconstitutional and refused to allow it to be collected? Could the Arkansas state Supreme Court have ruled that the attack on Sumter was illegal and that the fort did belong to the federal government, and could that have meant that Arkansas wasn't at war with the U.S.? When the Davis regime suspended habeas corpus througout the south, heck with any laws passed by the regime at all, then the individual states could have agreed to enact them or disagreed depending on how their state Supreme Court decided?
And on a case by case basis in the respective states where the ruling was that is perfectly permissible. Or do you think that a ruling in Virginia should bind a person in Alabama? Cause if you do you might as well attempt to enforce Virginia's code of statutes in the borders of Alabama as well.
It's not a case of imposing Viginia's statutes on Alabama, it's imposing the Davis regime's statutes on the country as a whole.
IIRC the Texas supreme court ruled very similarly to that on the conscription issue. They did not rule it unconstitutional all together, but did say that conscription could not take troops out of their state and frontier guards. But such is the nature of state sovereignty, and in case you have forgotten the CSA viewed their union as a CONFEDERATION of sovereign and independent states that gave power to the federal government by their own designation, not the other way around.