Using that standard, Chase's opinion on secession was obiter dicta. So the matter is still open.
But unilateral secession, on the other hand, was settled by the Supreme Court in 1869. They ruled is was illegal, and so it remains.
And the court has reversed itself, and been overturned by the people.
But I will digress, in order to refute the inane ruling. Chase wrote, 'The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.
Bravo Sierra. Article IV § 3 states in part, that the no state 'be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States.' Those states aren't indestructible. He made up the indestuctible Union part as well. The Articles of Confederation are not incorporated into the Constitution, the Constitution omits the 5 references to perpetuity that the AoC contained.
Bravo Sierra. The defendants case was based on the argument that since Texas was not a part of the United States then the state could not take the case in question to the Supreme Court. The validity of the acts of secession was a central issue before the court, and the court ruled that Texas was never out of the Union at any time.
And the court has reversed itself, and been overturned by the people.
And when did this occur?
And yet the government of these people endures.
What could be more permanent than a perpetual Union made more perfect?
Walt