[Aurelius]

"I've read the entire Constitution front to back and I haven't found where it says that the Preamble can't be used to form the basis for the court's decision."

There is nowhere in the preamble to the Constitution any reference to the perpetuity or indissolubility of the union.

"You've shown that you can make up new paramaters for guiding Supreme Court decisions,.."

I have done nothing of the sort. What I have done is to show that the decision in Texas v. White is based on doctrines not contained in nor implied by the Constitution. As a result the decision was contingent and could not have been anticipated prior to its issuance. Whatever Constitutional law may be regarding such a situation, and I no more claim expertize in Constitutional law than I would presume to "set up new parameters for guiding Supreme Court decisions" I have to opine (strictly personally that is) that to make a contingent decision retroactive is unjust for exactly the same reason that making an ex post facto law is unjust.

[Non-Sequitur]

A very concise and well thought out explanation, but one which makes no sense whatsoever. Just because you disagree with the justices opinion on what the Constitution means does not make it wrong. Just because you don't believe that they constituion expresses or implies the same that the Supreme court believes means nothing. Just because you believe in contingent decisions and that the court is making ex-post facto laws doesn't mean that either of these things exist or are happening. What you, or I, believe doesn't matter. It is what the Supreme Court believes that does. The Supreme Court does not need to check with you before they make their decision, they can make it on their own.

The decision in Texas v. White is not that much different than the decision in Furman v. Georgia in 1972. The Constitution outlaws cruel and unusual punishment but nowhere does it define what that means. The majority of the court decided that if the sentencing guidlines for imposing capital punishment were not clearly defined and fairly administered then that violated the 8th, as well as the 14th, Amendment. By your definition this constitutes using 'doctrines not expressed or implied by the Constitution'. The court threw out every death penalty sentence across the country. By your definition that no doubt constitutes 'set(ing) up new parameters for guiding Supreme Court decisions'. Undoubtably you would say that was another example of a 'contingent decision' (whatever that means) and that such a decision would be unjust ...'for exactly the same reason that making an ex post facto law is unjust'. And regardless of all that, the verdict held, the sentences were thrown out and life went on. You may not agree with the opinion of the justices that this was an example of cruel and unusual punishment any more that you agree with Chief Justice Chase's opinion that a permenant union formed a more perfect union but it doesn't really matter in either case, does it. Unilateral secession as practiced by the south is not legal and never has been legal, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not.