You left out the next part:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
And there is a limit to government power. In The Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote:
"What is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part [the necessary and proper clause] of the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them ... the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in a last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can by the elections of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers."Other remedies are the amendment process and rebellion. The former is hard. The latter comes with no guarantee of success.
As for Jefferson and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, I'll point out that the other states explicitly rejected his interpretation. Seven states responded directly to Virginia and Kentucky's appeal by refusing to pass the resolution. Four more states passed bills explicitly disapproving of the resolutions, and four more states simply ignored it.
Responding to the criticism, Virginia passed the Report of 1800, explaining that they didn't really mean it. In that, they write:
t has been said, that it belongs to the judiciary of the United States, and not the state legislatures, to declare the meaning of the Federal Constitution.So according to the authors of the resolution that you cite, any statement of the unconstitutionality of an action of the federal government is simply a statement of opinion, not something with any legal force.But a declaration that proceedings of the Federal Government are not warranted by the Constitution, is a novelty neither among the citizens, nor among the legislatures of the states; nor are the citizens or the legislature of Virginia, singular in the example of it.
Nor can the declarations of either, whether affirming or denying the constitutionality of measures of the Federal Government, or whether made before or after judicial decisions thereon, be deemed, in any point of view, an assumption of the office of the judge. The declarations, in such cases, are expressions of opinion, unaccompanied with any other effect than what they may produce on opinion, by exciting reflection. The expositions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect by force. The former may lead to a change in the legislative expression of the general will; possibly to a change in the opinion of the judiciary; the latter enforces the general will, whilst that will and that opinion continue unchanged.
George Washington was appalled by what Jefferson wrote, and in a letter to Patrick Henry he characterized it as, "the endeavors of a certain party among us to disquiet the public mind among us with unfounded alarms; to arraign every act of the administration; to set the people at variance with their government; and to embarrass all its measures."
I wasn’t trying to leave anything out, I was just quoting the first line which pretty much summed up the rest. My point still stands. Nowhere is it written that the Supreme Court or any other branch of the Federal government is to be the sole determiner of the extent of the power of the Federal government. Jefferson and Madison’s statements which I quoted before still stand. The idea that objections to unconstitutional acts of the federal government have no legal force is interesting, as an unconstitutional act by the federal government is in itself also illegal and having no legal force backed by the constitution.