Per the Contitution, any federal law prohibiting secession, unilateral or otherwise, must be pursuant to the Constitution. Please post the law in question.
There's not one is there?
Perhaps you could cite the revalent section of the Constitution prohibiting secession. There's not one is there? The prohibitions against the state are all in Article I, as noted by Justice Marshall in the Virginia debates.
If such HAD existed, Grier and the court, in the Prize Cases, would have cited such. They did not. What he did say was,
'When the party in rebellion occupy and hold in a hostile manner a certain portion of territory, have declared their independence, have cast off their allegiance, have organized armies, have commenced hostilities against their former sovereign, the world acknowledges them as belligerents, and the contest a war.'Got that? Then he adds this,
'[O]n the 13th of May, 1861, the Queen of England issued her proclamation of neutrality, recognizing hostilities as existing between the Government of the United States of American and certain States styling themselves the Confederate States of America. This was immediately followed by similar declarations or silent acquiescence by other nations.'The Confederacy was recognized as a belligerent party by foreign nations.
'[T]he parties to a civil war usually concede to each other belligerent rights. They exchange prisoners, and adopt the other courtesies and rules common to public or national wars.Which did occur. The Confederacy was recognized as a belligerent party by the Union.
Still with Grier? This isn't rocket science. Now for the kicker,
'The parties belligerent in a public war are independent nations.'The court legally recognized the independent nation called the Confederate States of America. No reasonable, fair minded person could say anything else.
There's not one is there?
Of course there is. It's the Militia Act -- passed on February, 28, 1795.
You must be learning disabled or something because you have seen this quote many times.
The majority ruling in the Prize Cases refers directly to the Act.
"The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States.
All persons residing within this territory whose property may be used toincrease the revenues of the hostile power are, in this contest, liable to be treated as enemies, though not foreigners. They have cast off their allegianceand made war on their Government, and are none the less enemies because they are traitors."
Why would the Supreme Court refer to the Militia Act -- if it had not been made PURSUANT to the Constitution?
What on God's green earth gives -you- , or anyone else, now or in the 19th century -- the right to decide which laws are made in pursuance to the Constitution? That power, under law, rests exclusively with the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court called the secessionists traitors.
I don't know what helped form your opinions on these issues, but whatever it was was obviously incomplete.
Walt