And once again we see that apparently the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the matter merely because lentulusgracchus said that they didn't? And that a Suprem Court decision is invalid because lentulusgracchus said it is? I must have missed the part in the Constitution that laid that out.
Argument ad hominem, times two.
Either my point is valid, or it isn't. Don't argue that my point can't be valid because I'm not good-looking enough. You abuse our fellow conversants if you do, never mind me.
The point is that the Constitution of the United States does not cover all contingencies or remove all powers from the People of the States that ratified it.
You can't demand negative evidence as an excuse to deny me my rights, or the States theirs.
As an analogy, you might argue that the First Amendment says nothing about street corners, so that I'm arrestable for speaking on one on matters displeasing to you.
The Constitution confers NO authority on the several States -- it couldn't, could it? -- to deny other States the right to resume their sovereign powers and leave the Union.
The Supreme Court was addressing matters ultra vires when it pretended to adjudicate matters involving sovereign States that had left the Union and were no longer under either the Constitution or the authority of the Supreme Court. Is that clear enough for you?
Just because the Court had a gun in its hand doesn't mean it was right. That's appeal to force: "we won the War, so we're right about Article VI issues, no matter what we say."
The Constitution and con law are not a game of Simon Says. But ever since the Civil War, they have been -- can't you feel the noose tightening?