Texas also had it enshrined as a right in two of their constitutions (it's had three) and explicitly as part of the legal terms for joining the union. Scholars claim this is no longer true and Texas can't. I suspect, but don't know, like so many legal matters, the experts don't know their asshole from a hole in ground. If you care, over the years, I've spoken with several lawyers and a constitutional scholar and the intelligent ones all provided the same answer in there own words. Words which convey a lot between the lines. They said variations of, it doesn't matter what the law or the constitution says or its spirit or its intent. What matters is legal precedent and what judges are taught to believe and accept. In other words, they admit judges don't follow the law or the US Constitution, but rather whatever a judge pretends he claims it means and lawyers then comply with the farce for career success. Effectively creating a new law by way of legal precedent; regardless of what the law and US Constitution actually says.