Replies

It's an interpretation, not an explicit rule in the Constitution.

The precedential holding in the Supreme Court case of Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) is the law of the land until the Constitution is amended, or the Court issues a superseding opinion. That is not weak; that is the law of the land. Rightly or wrongly, it holds that secession is unconstitutional.

The precedential holding in the Supreme Court case of Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) is the law of the land until the Constitution is amended, or the Court issues a superseding opinion.

That's called Common Law.

Not interested, because it, as far as I am concerned, like the Abortion "Law", is just another example of made-up Law, or Legislating from the Bench.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that deals with this directly, however, just the first two sentences of the Declaration of Independence speaks volumes about this subject by the Founders:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The precedential holding in the Supreme Court case of Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) is the law of the land until the Constitution is amended, or the Court issues a superseding opinion. That is not weak; that is the law of the land. Rightly or wrongly, it holds that secession is unconstitutional.

It's more accurate to state that precedent from SCOTUS is only binding to the extent that SCOTUS says it is, AND enforces compliance with that precedent in the lower courts. Roe v. Wade is about to join Plessy v. Ferguson, and other SCOTUS abominations in the ash heap of history. I could cite quite a few SCOTUS precedents about the power of jury, which are routinely ignored in lower courts but have never been formally overruled by SCOTUS.

I am also aware the the "constitutional standard" for warrantless arrests set in Henry v. United States, which were limited to cases where a police officer witnessed a minor offense committed in his presence, or had "reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing" a felony, is routinely violated on a daily basis in the courts of the U.S., and the last time I checked, SCOTUS has never overruled that precedent. If the "constitutional standard" declared by SCOTUS were enforced, police could not arrest men when responding to domestic disputes after the fact. The old "constitutional standard", is not presently popular, so it is ignored.