You misread the quote: it contains 2 separate conditions for secession, each sufficient without the other. Thus, if a majority of states (or federal government) were to violate the contract of the union, it is dissolved and needs no meeting of the 3 wolves and 2 sheep to decide whether the sheep can go home.
Finally, I am afraid we are at the last recourse stage. Your understanding of politics and mine are different, or I should say that you and I have a different perspective on the state of the Republic.
“By tyrant, I mean the other states that would force the unwilling state to stay in union,”
If one has kept one’s part of an agreement (debatable), it is not tyranny to require another party to the agreement to keep their part, willingly or not, or suffer a penalty.
“… the states’ authority has been usurped by the feds.”
That is a problem.
“…it contains 2 separate conditions for secession, each sufficient without the other.”
Neither of which amounts to “always”.
“…(or federal government) were to violate the contract of the union…”
Disagree with including the federal government there. The Union doesn’t need the federal government in order to remain the Union, the federal government can’t violate the contract of the Union except as a deputy of some of the States, and if it gets out of line the States should bring it back into line. The problem there of course is that the States have allowed their deputy, their creation, to usurp their authority.