Nonsense. Nowhere in the Constitution is that right prohibited. Some of the States did declare they had that right in their ratification documents and they were correct. If not, then the union was void as a fraudulent agreement. That specific right was a stated condition, a stated condition that was accepted as part of the agreement to form the union.
"There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."
The conditions put forth in the ratification declarations clearly denote that it was the individual State's decision about reassuming ceded powers. The idea of "consent of States" being a prerequisite violates that condition, a condition that was accepted at the formation of the union. The Justices' decision would void the union as a fraudulent agreement, and therefore destroy the power of the constitution and the Court's authority along with it. Courts pass illegal judgements, it happens. However, it has long been established that illegal decisions are not really law. That illegal decision was just that, illegal and nonbinding. To think otherwise would be to void the union as a fraudulent agreement.
Try again. In all the ratification documents there is a line stating that they assent to and ratify the Constitution as adopted by convention on September 17, 1787. And that includes the line that says that the Constitution and the laws made under it are the supreme law of the land, state and local laws and constitutions notwithstanding. So if the manner in which the state chose to resume the power and leave the Union violated the Constitution then their actions were illegal. And as the Supreme Court pointed on the southern acts of unilateral secession were illegal. Regardless of ratification documents.