TexasReb, much of what you have said here I would enjoy discussing on your Talk page. Here, let’s look at Texas v. White and the proposed passage you would amend. In Texas v. White, Texas the state is held indestructible, therefore Texas had standing to sue in the Supreme Court in original jurisdiction, and under the Constitution Texas was awarded the bonds back with no payment required to White. In Reconstruction the Texas taxpayers did not have to pay on the bonds because they were issued illegally for an illegal purpose.  

 The group who purported to sell the bonds were the secessionist legislature, secession is held illegal. They sold the bonds for the purposes of financing a rebellion, rebellion is held illegal. That is, part of the Texas v. White reasoning was dicta, and part was reasoning for the decision on the bonds. Secession was held to be illegal according to the Constitution both in dicta and in the holding for the decision. The Supreme Court does explain the meaning of the national law in cases that come before it, when an issue is ripe for national resolution by interpretation of the supreme law of the land: the Constitution, Acts of Congress and Treaties.