The Supreme Court is the same court that was created in Article III of the Constitution. Its membership changes, but it is the Court. As such, the Supreme Court has the obligation, from time to time, to rule on the constitutionality of an issue. Such was the case of
Texas v White. This was not a case that involved disagreements between the various branches of government. It was a case that involved the actions of an illicit, secessionist government:
Facts of the Case
In 1851, Congress authorized the transfer of $10 million worth of United States bonds to the state of Texas. The bonds were payable to the state or bearer and were to be redeemable in 1864. In 1862, during the war of rebellion, an insurgent Texas legislature authorized the use of the bonds to purchase war supplies. Four years later, the reconstruction government tried to reclaim the bonds.
Question Presented
Was Texas a state in the union eligible to seek redress in the Supreme Court? Could Texas constitutionally reclaim the bonds?
Conclusion
In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit and that individuals such as White had no claim to the bonds in question. The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." ." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued a state.
This was a precedent-setting decision. It is settled case law. If you do not like the decision, then you need to do as others have done in the past - change the law or amend the Constitution. In a country that respects the rule of law, you can't pick and choose the laws you want to follow, or the decisions you will respect. I personally think Roe v Wade is a crock of crap, and I have worked to elect people who will change (or re-interpret) the law. But until that time, it is a settled matter.
Second point: The term "ex post facto" means "after the fact" or "retroactive." In the Constitution, there are two clauses that address the issue: I.9.3 states that "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" by Congress, and I.10.1 states that "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
Virtually every court ruling or decision is after the fact. Your argument indicates that you misunderstood the meaning and application of the term. The White v Texas ruling was made in 1869, after the war. Since the Constitution is utterly silent on the validity of secession, the court must look back to precedent and the original intent of the Framers. It is clear the Supreme Court, not withstanding who occupies the seats, is the ultimate judicial arbiter of the meaning and intent of the Constitution. The people, of course, the real sovereign power, have several ways to change the law or the Constitution. The South did not take that course prior to unilateral secession.
Third point: Every state either entered into the Constitution compact willingly, or joined the under its laws. (One can argue about Texas and Hawaii, but it not really germane to this discussion.) I have said on other threads that the constitution did not create a new country or government; it changed the "operating agreement" between the partners. There is several "pre-constitutional laws" (i.e Northwest Ordinance) and institutions of government (Post Office, Army, Navy) that pre-date the Constitution. Think of the Constitutional Union like a general partnership. Once you are part of that partnership, unless your partnership agreement has specific language on how you can get out, you are part of it until you negotiate your way out, or concede your assets. Of course, you can always try and change the nature and terms of the partnership, if you have the votes.
The South didn't have the votes or weren't willing to try and change the terms - so they unilaterally left the partnership. In business, you get sued if you do that. With governments, you get shot, killed, and imprisoned.
I again point out my point from my previous post.
The court in Texas v. White says it has the power to rule. But its power to rule over Texas post secession is exactly what we are arguing about in the first place!
You seem to be missing the point that those of us who have reached the conclusion that the decision to secede is reserved to the States and the people because it is not explicity prohibited by the Constitution are arguing that the laws of the US (and therefore the jurisdiction of the court) no longer apply to States that are no longer in the Union.
You are arguing that court was able to rule that secession was unconstitutional because States were not able to secede and were therefore subject to the rulings of that court. That is a circular argument. I ruled, therefore I can rule.
This is not a logical argument. The proof that your opinion is correct is dependent on your opinion being correct.
In your argument you state that it was a ruling involving the actions of an illicit secessionist government. That is the whole freaking argument! You cannot use the assumption that the secession is illicit as a proof that the secession is illicit.
You also state that you are a member of a partnership unless there is specific language allowing you to leave. Unfortunately, the Constitution states that unless something is expressly prohibited by the Constitution then those powers are reserved to the States or the people respectively. The government that the original States created was delegated limited powers for express purposes, and all other powers were retained by the States. It was not a general partnership with a blanket delegation of powers. Some States even mentioned in their ratifications that they reserved the right to withdraw the delegated powers.
Your argument about the original intent of the founders I also question. The founders had just "dissolved the political bonds" that bound them to England. To imagine that they would deny the same to their descendants is silly. England imagined that the colonists complaints were not tyranny but were instead just complaints about an exercise of legal power. Do those who determine that they are tyrannized get to make that decision or does the government they claim is tyrannizing them get to make the decision? The Federal government is not the sole arbiter of the extent of its powers as Madison and Jefferson indicated in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. IMO, a government or a court doesn't get to have the final say in deciding if it is behaving tyrannically or not. Similarly, a government doesn't get to decide if the people can withdraw their consent to be governed or not. BECAUSE NO GOVERNMENT ANYWHERE EVER WOULD.
When I mention Ex Post Facto I mention it in the sense that the Constitution was completely silent on the matter and that no court had mentioned it previously. The Texas v. White case was a post-war case that retroactively said, oh by the way, that was illegal. Not a legislative Ex Post Facto law that criminalized prior conduct for a citizen but Ex Post Facto in the sense that it cannot be used as evidence that the seceding States thought they were doing anything they did not have the power to do.
According to your philosophy, the people of every State must remain in the Union forever regardless of whether or not that Union is providing the benefits it was formed for. That makes no common sense.
As an example. Imagine every State in the Union decided that Alaska would become a permanent national wildlife refuge and no development would ever be allowed there again. The people of Alaska protest. The Senate votes 98-0. The House votes unanimously with only Alaska's reps voting no. The President signs it. The courts rule that the government has created wildlife refuges before and can do so this time.
Who gets to decide if this is tyranny? You say that the people of Alaska just have to smile and take it despite the fact that they deem it tyranny and that it removes the benefits for which they joined the union in the first place. You say that they must smile and take it and that the founders intended it to be so and would be opposed to them breaking the political bonds, opposed to them withdrawing their consent to be governed in such a manner, and be in favor of them being forced to stay in such a union at the point of the bayonet if necessary. I find that VERY difficult to believe. In fact I believe Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson would have a very strongly worded Alaska Resolution written in about a day and a half.
But thats just my opinion. Perhaps I am wrong and the founders and King George would get along well these days.