Yes it is. Adding adjectives to your argument doesn't make it more persuasive.

State secrets completely undermine the concept of judicial checks on government power. This isn't a new idea, it's been heavily criticized since Bush has been in power and expanded the use of it:

> Glenn Greenwald alleges that the Bush administration attempted to expand executive power, as evidenced by the unitary executive theory propagated by John Yoo. The theory suggests that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, cannot be bound by Congress or any law, national or international. By invoking the state secrets privilege in cases involving actions taken in the war on terror (i.e. extraordinary rendition, allegations of torture, allegedly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Greenwald opines the administration tried to evade judicial review of these claims of exceptional war powers. In effect, this is preventing a judicial ruling determining whether there is a legal basis for such expansive executive power. With that in mind, applying this privilege makes impeachment the only possible means left for Congress to exercise their duty to uphold the checks and balances constitutionally intended to prevent abuse of power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege

Since impeachment is a highly unlikely scenario... if a government action is unconstitutional and citizens have a no way of challenging the constitutionality in court due to the government deeming it's actions were a secret, then how is the government not deciding what is considered constitutional or not?

The fact that the state secrets argument was overruled a couple of times in the mists of history before most of us were born doesn't mean any court would overrule it today.