Can you explain your first paragraph again, but in differrent words? I'm not sure what you mean. If you're saying that unilateral secession is illegal, then I agree to the extent that that's the decision in Texas v. White. However, the Founders laid out a constitution with a defined and limited federal government, with all powers not delegated to that government being reserved to the states or to the people. That's what the X Amendment says:In point of historical fact, there is no more proof of a 'Right' of secession than, that it deoes not exist at all, except through the operation of prescribed law, i.e., unilateral secession operates outside the operation of the Organic Law of the Union and thuus, cannot violate any of the clearly expressed powers of the Constituion, No Matter the Constitution or Laws of any State.
Supreme Court rulings have the Force of Law, where applicable.
Madison explicitly denied the right of a state to block Federal Law and denied his Va. Resolution advocated it. But,, even if he did, he would have been as wrong as Jefferson in his Ky Resolution.
Until such time as the Courts or Congress overturns Tx v White, its rulings concerning secession and the CW, are a part of the Law of The Land.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This is why states are left to handle public education, transportation, etc., because those responsibilities are not delegated to the federal government. Whatever issues or questions arise now or hereafter are left to the states or to the people, unless delegated to the federal government. Secession is not delegated to the federal government, so it is left to the states or to the people. That is the stance taken in the Constitution.
Supreme Court rulings do not have the force of law. They have force, because the federal government, in all likelihood, will enforce them, but there is no Constitutional provision for this. The Constitution is silent when it comes to nullifying legislation, executive orders, and state actions. The first nullification theory was the State Nullification Theory, which was expressed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions:
"That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness."
"That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil"
"The General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people."
-James Madison, Virginia Resolution of 1798.
This is a clear case of a state declaring a federal act unconstitutional. Massachusetts published a similar resolution during the War of 1812:
"Resolved, That the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the 9th day of January in the present year, for enforcing the act laying an embargo and the several acts supplementary thereto, is, in the opinion of the Legislature, in many respects unjust, oppressive and unconstitutional, and NOT LEGALLY BINDING on the citizens of this state. But notwithstanding this opinion, in order finally to secure a certain and permanent relief, it is earnestly recommended to all parties aggrieved by the operation of this act, to abstain from forcible resistance, and to apply for their remedy, in a peaceable manner, to the LAWS of the Commonwealth."
Chief Justice John Marshall was the first Justice to declare an act unconstitutional from the bench. He did this in the 1804 case, Marbury v. Madison, but it had no binding effect. It was simply his opinion. The first person in the federal government who attacked State Nullification Theory was President Andrew Jackson, who was notorious for aggrandizing the federal government. His nicknames were "King Andrew" and "The General." It was not until after the Civil War, when "big government" took over, that Judicial Review Theory was enforced by the federal government. However, the Constitution is silent on this point, and it's more a matter of people acquiescing in Judicial Review than the Supreme Court having any Constitutional authority to govern. If the state of Pennsylvania declared a federal act unconstitutional, it would be equally as legal as the Supreme Court doing so. The Constitution should perhaps be amended here. Maybe an oligarchy of Judges should be written into the Constitution, or the State Nullification Theory should be, or maybe some new theory.