They’re separate thoughts, but history is filled with constitutional amendments that upended Supreme Court precedent. That’s typically a large reason for trying to ratify a constitutional amendment.

Ruling that the union was perpetual and indissoluble, and secession was not constitutionally permissible. An amendment to the constitution, as I say, then changes the constitution under which that case arose and could fundamentally alter the answer.

Not a pivot at all. Laws are repealed and challenged all the time. Constitutional amendments, while capable of narrowing by SCOTUS in interpretation, cannot be overturned by SCOTUS.

(2) He is right about it being silent, which I also clearly state in the piece. However, the Supreme Court has not been silent on it.

That case appears to be about taxes and has nothing to do with secession at all. The article you posted was about how “all it would take is Congress to approve and the president to sign.” As I say in my piece, sure that’s true…it also will never happen. And yes I know Erwin. (1)

The article you posted is inaccurate and misleading. We can agree on reasons to secede, but the Supreme Court and the Constitution is clear. Your article uses a throwaway line about Congress and assumes it’s an easy hurdle. It’s not. Hence why people need actual legal articles from conlaw profs.

Because I don’t get enough characters here. Here’s a more complete explanation.