It is interesting you hold John Marshall in such high esteem with this matter, considering your dismissal of him when he contradicts you and The Lincoln on habeas corpus.
Been doing some work on that. Lincoln's attorney general wrote an opinion based on the precept then current at the time that each of the three branches of government had the right to interpret the Constitution for itself. It was not current at the time to accept Supreme Court rulings as precedent, but only applying to the particular case.
That may be why Chief Justice Rehnquist, as you know, says the issue has never been decided.
Of course any --case-- brought before the Supreme Court that posited legal secession would have been decided against the secessionists.
They knew that, which is why they resorted to violence instead of the courts.
Walt
Ah, but Marshall's precedent WAS applied to the particular case in Merryman. The Lincoln failed to appeal Merryman as was the constitutional procedure if he disagreed with it. Try again.