As I have posted before and now post again. Here is how Madison said the Constitution should be interpreted (Source: Madison's letter to M. L. Hurbert, May 1830, my emphasis below):
But whatever respect may be thought due to the intention of the Convention, which prepared & proposed the Constitution, as presumptive evidence of the general understanding at the time of the language used, it must be kept in mind that the only authoritative intentions were those of the people of the States, as expressed thro' the Conventions which ratified the Constitution.
Now let's look at an expression by a ratifying convention [my bold below]:
We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the 17th day of September, in the year 1787, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof precedes these presents,) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, — Do declare and make known, —
... That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness ...
... Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration, — We, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the state of New York, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said Constitution.
There was no mention of any restrictions on that reassume powers of government statement. But what did John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, signers of that ratification, know about the Constitution, eh? Sure, they wrote about what the Constitution meant in The Federalist Papers, but we are to trust BroJoeK instead of them?
Show me where New York's ratification was not accepted by other states.
So even here, the best case secessionists can possibly make, even here New York does not claim the right to secede "at pleasure" or for "light and transient causes", but only if necessary, just as the Declaration of Independence derives its authority from necessity driven by the King's long "usurpations" and "abuses of power".
rustbucket: "There was no mention of any restrictions on that reassume powers of government statement."
In fact the statement clearly refers to what is "necessary" as opposed to "light and transient reasons" or secession "at pleasure".
Indeed, from all my readings on this subject our Founders were 100% consistent.
So it took people like Jefferson Davis until 1860 to announce on the Senate floor that the 10th Amendment now meant they could declare unilateral, unapproved secession, "at pleasure".
"At pleasure" was not Founders Original Intent.