Incorrect. It does reference a passage from the Constitution and then notes how all the provisions of the Constitution looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. The second part of this legal argument is important and brings this ruling into agreement with other rulings by the Court.
I finally found your reference tucked away in the first paragraph. "'to form a more perfect Union.'" You are basing your entire argument on six words that has nothing to do with whether or not states can secede. You should have stuck with anything other that that. If that is the basis of Texas v White I would call that about as bad as Roe. Lucky for you they passed an amendment making it illegal, but I wonder why they would have needed to do that if they had Texas v White as such a strong case to back up that argument.
I am not basing "my" entire argument on anything And the Supreme Court didn't base it's entire argument on just that one passage, as has already been noted.
If it was clearly stated in the constitution one way or the other the SCOTUS wouldn't be involved
