First, there is clear Constitutional precedent, merely not a SCOTUS decision, in permitting secession with the consent of Congress, as I pointed out in that other thread, i.e., the granting of independence to the Philippines. The Philippine Islands became territory of the United States by treaty with Spain in 1899 ratifying our conquest of them during the Spanish-American War the year before. We also obtained Puerto Rico, rights over Cuba (which we were prepared to allow to become immediately independent), and a few loose ends, which I think included Guam, out of that war. The agreement with the Philippine people was that we would provide education and defense for 40 years, reserving certain rights for the U.S government in the interim, and equipping the nationals for self-government. In 1935 we fostered the establishment of the first Commonwealth government there (in the sense in which Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth), with the intent of granting independence in 1942 or so. A minor contretemps with Japan delayed that granting, but after the liberation of the Philippines, they put together a government and in 1946 we duly recognized that government and formally ceded to it the U.S. territory of the Philippine Islands, reserving the right to a couple of bases as extraterritorial U.S. property (like Wiesbaden AFB as regards Germany) on their national territory.
If you look over the case, what had happened is that after the Civil War, the Reconstruction government sued to recover some “securities” (bonds?) previously owned by the state which the government under the Confederacy had sold. Chief Justice Chase held that the state could not secede, and that therefore its action in seceding was unlawful and had left the state with no lawful government. The act of selling the securities was illegal, because it was done by an unlawful government.
Now, there’s something just a trifle tacky about the way this case was decided. If someone committed a murder in the South during the Civil War, is he entitled to go free because the courts of the state that tried him and sentenced him to life without parole were not lawful courts? It smacks of legal artifice of the sort in which precedent and implication of constitutional provisions are juggled until a result that pleases the court is “justified.” I think Jonathan Chance has it in one.
However, I cannot see its holdings about secession being overturned, unless something bizarre happens – for example, Hawaii decides to get behind the independence movement, a majority in Congress decides to let them go (say Republicans in the majority realize that Hawaii fairly regularly elects Democrats, so letting them go will increase their majority). The Secretary of State thereupon agrees to a treaty with the Republic of Hawaii and turns the land they’re located on over to them. They promptly nationalize the pineapple plantations, and the Dole Pineapple heirs sue the Secretary of State using Texas vs. White as precedent.
However, Dr. Lizardo, you are sadly mistaken about the standards of Constitutional law in the U.S., unless you’re aware of them and are looking to debate text ab nihilo without regard to previous decisions. The Supremes are not in the position of a movie reviewer but the body empowered to make the final decisions on what the law of the land is by virtue of being given the judicial power of the United States in Article III of the Constitution.