Wlat: I'm paraphrasing Madison. You don't know the history.
LOL - Here's your original statement:
"There were no illusions in 1788-90 as to the permanence of Union under law".
I proved that lie for what it was, so you then modified your position with:
"The assumption at all the ratification conventions was that the Constitution was both binding and perpetual except for intolerable abuse."
Which leads us back to the top of this post for my response. The only thing you were doing was being proven ignorant of history. BTW, as I have already shown, your modified statement is just as false as your first. As to "intolerable abuse", that is not the condition stated in the declarations. For example, New York merely said the powers could be reassumed "whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness". That condition was accepted by the framers.
You don't know the history.
But not Madison.
And none of these state ratifying conventions even suggests that U.S. law applies.
Funny that the New Yorkers mention happiness, for it is the pursuit of happiness that Jefferson refers to in the D of I.
And the D of I was absolutely an appeal to natural rights. And none of these states says that anything but natural or God given rights are involved in reassuming their power. Even the newspaper article you wrongly put forward alludes to natural rights.
Walt