"That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, ought to be exempted, upon payment of an equivalent, to employ another to bear arms in his stead."
I'm not aware of that being granted. New York made the following declaration known:
" That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power."
That hasn't come to pass, either. Virginia copied New York in the prohibition against standing armies and Rhode Island in the payment of substitutes.
All these clauses were included in the same sections were the states claimed the right to take back power. None are law because the Congress has authorized standing armies and the practice of paying substitutes was not allowed in any recent conscription. And the Supreme Court has upheld these practices as legal.
The ratification documents, the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence are all importent papers in our nation's history and all also share the same thing. None of them trump the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all the states agreed with that. And the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court the duty to interpret the Constitution and determine what is legal and what is not. Not the states. Not the ratification documents. Not you. Not me.
The decision in Texas v. White is valid because the central issue was whether or not the Texas articles of secession were legal in 1861. The court ruled that they were not and it matters not if the ruling came in 1869, 1879 or 1999. The Supreme Court rules on cases when they come before them regardless of how long it takes.
Your last question makes no sense. "...is it possible for there to be an unconstitutional act if the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court all say its constitutional?" Who says that it is unconstitutional? If the congress say it's constitutional and the president says it's constitutional then that doesn't matter. If the Supreme Court rules on the Constitutionality of the act then that is the deciding factor. The fact that you believe it to be unconstitutional is irrelevant.
Secession, however, is another matter. The sovereignty of the States was the States to delegate or not. If a States had refused to ratify (e.g. NC and RI up to their respective ratifications), then they were independent of the Union. This was recognized by the States themselves at the time, and by various Federal agents as well. I can provide the documentation if you like.
For one to accept your logic, one must believe that ratification was intended to be irrevocable. I believe that the power to withdraw one’s ratification subsequent to ratification was widely held, as evidenced by the ratification s of VA, NY, and RI. A declaration on the part of the new Federal government that such contingent ratifications were unacceptable and sending the these declarations of ratification back to the States for unconditional and irrevocable ratification would suffice, if you could provide the reference. The only statements I have seen that would contradict this view is a private letter from James Madison to Alexander Hamilton dated July 20th, 1788 (http://www.constitution.org/jm/17880720_hamilton.htm). While I can’t discount this view, given its source, when it conflicts with a declaration from a body elected to embody the sovereignty of States, I believe that the declaration of that body must take precedence. So I respectfully repeat the question, when did the Union become perpetual and indissoluble?
Respectfully,
D J White