The 1876 Texas Constitution’s Article I, Bill of Rights (which I cited previously), completely eliminated the wording of the 1868 version that you cited, and the 1876 version (which is still the operative Article I today) replaced it. The 1876 version did not address the issue because the 1876 version eliminated it in its entirety.
Texas acknowledged in 1868 that secession and nullification were unlawful. That they did not explicitly so state in 1876 does not constitute a claim that secession or nullification is lawful.
“The only entity that can possibly secede from the United States is a state of the United States. The act of seceding would necessarily take place while in the status of being a member state. The act of seceding undoes the prior act of acceding.”Well, duh.
Yes, you had a duh moment and I pointed it out.
The act of seceding can only be taken by a state while it is still a state in the union. The Court held this act violated the Constitution and was null and void ab initio, and legally, it never happened, and cannot happen.
But the issue is that the seceded state neither ENACTED nor ENFORCED a law that abridged the privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, which was the qualifier you cited in your earlier post.
The attempted act of secession violated the Constitution and purported to take the State and its people out of the union and beyond the jurisdiction of the United States. It did that in the union state of Texas. As Texas never left the United States, whatever it has done since 1845 was done WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.
You can read all about it in Texas v. White 74 U.S. 700. You can disagree with it. Personally, I like the dissenting opinion of Justice Grier at 739-740,
Now whether we assume the State of Texas to be judicially in the Union (though actually out of it) or not, it will not alter the case. The contest now is between the State of Texas and her own citizens. She seeks to annul a contract with the respondents, based on the allegation that there was no authority in Texas competent to enter into an agreement during the rebellion. Having relied upon one fiction, namely, that she is a State in the Union, she now relies upon a second one, which she wishes this court to adopt, that she was not a State at all during the five years that she was in rebellion. She now sets up the plea of insanity, and asks the court to treat all her acts made during the disease as void.
But it is the majority who state the opinion of the court, and the dissent is nothing more than dicta. The majority opinion decides the case and creates precedent. Texas v. White provides the interpretation of the Constitution that is enforceable by the goverment. All you need to do is get the Constitution amended to overturn Texas v. White, or get the Supreme Court to issue a superseding opinion overturning Texas v. White. Another alternative is a rebellion.
Justice Grier's dissent did not change or nullify the majority opinion. Your dissent does not change it either. It's still there.
I am well aware of Texas v. White, as it was one of the cases we “dissected” in a college class I had on the Constitution.
“Justice Grier’s dissent did not change or nullify the majority opinion. Your dissent does not change it either. It’s still there.”
So, I can’t disagree with the Court’s decision? As Marbury v. Madison showed us, the law is what the Court says it is; that is, until a subsequent Court decides otherwise or Congress nullifies it. A couple cases in point: Dred Scott v. Sandford (overturned by the 14th Amendment); Plessy v. Ferguson (Brown v. Board of Education rendered it moot); United States v. Cruikshank (D.C. v. Heller and MacDonald v. City of Chicago eviscerated that).