Yes, Texas v White
, 1869. Which was after the Civil War ended.
I'm in a discussion about whether the South had the right to secede, and I'm taking the position that among other places, the Tenth Amendment made secession impossible without either a Supreme Court decision allowing the secession of a state or states, (unlikely since Texas v White was only 4 years after the Civil War), or a constitutional amendment allowing the states to leave, passed by 3/4 of the states.
If I relied upon Texas v White, the other side could say that the Civil War had just been fought at great cost, and the Texas v White decision was just a convenience to cover up an accomplished fact, like the US paying for Texas after we grabbed it from the Mexicans. They could argue that after all the bloodshed was over, the Supreme Court, regardless of the legal merits, simply couldn't say, "Umm fellows, you know those states that fought to secede back then and touched off that awful bloody war? Well, they were right-they did have that right. So after all those battles and loss of life, the Southern states can go their own way after all".
FWIW, my argument is that the Tenth Amendment says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This Amendment plainly says that the Constitution first states the rights the Union has, and after that the states have the leftover rights. The Supreme Court adjudicates conflicts. So if the Supreme Court, (or a lower Federal Court that is not overturned by the Supreme Court), says that something is a right of the Union, any state law which conflicts with it is invalid.
So, Article One, Section 8 says:
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Article 10, Section 10 says
1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation... coin Money.
3: 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power..
The southern states did all of these things except the one in red, and they tried unsuccessfully to do that one. Indeed, any state which actually was going to secede would have to do all or most of these things. But the southern states signed on to the US Constitution that only Congress can do all of these things, NOT the government of the state itself. In so doing, by agreeing to give to Congress all of the power to do these things for the individual states, they made secession impossible for a single state.
Any state that wanted to secede would have to perform the government powers reserved to the Federal government, thereby putting the state in violation of the Tenth Amendment,which prevents state powers from interfering with Federal power.
That's what I'm arguing. What do you think?