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?
To clarify even further, the acts of the States by which they withdrew from the Union and the Constitution's law were sovereign acts of the People, creators and authors -- masters and betters of the Constitution and the Government it created -- and therefore not reviewable by the inferior authority. That is a basic precept of the human pecking order, violated apparently only in Canada, where provincial courts review the national constitution, that inferior authorities do not review their masters. The People are the Masters of this house. Their acts as Sovereign will not be reviewed by anyone whose last name isn't Who Am.
No, I'm arguing that you point isn't valid because it is your opinion only and is backed only by your view of how you think things should be. I disagree with it, obviously. The Constitution did grant the Supreme Court jurisdiction in this matter. The manner in which the southern states chose to secede was illegal and therefore invalid. The southern states did not cease to be members of the Union so Texas had the right to bring the matter of Texas v White to the Supreme Court.