[BroJoeK]

from 2,205 WIJG: "Virginia was admitted to the union, on the legal basis of those very same ratification documents, including the subject reservations of rights."

And you can show us the document which says this?

[Who is John Galt?]

WIJG: "Virginia was admitted to the union, on the legal basis of those very same ratification documents, including the subject reservations of rights."

BJ: And you can show us the document which says this?

Were the ratification documents accepted (did Virginia become a State), or were they rejected (did Virginia not become a State)?

One might just as well ask: can you show us a document that supports your Post 2194 claim, that "[e]specially rejected was any language referring to powers 'reassumed,' or 'resumed,' by the people, or suggesting the possibility of states' unilateral secession?"

Obviously, you could not be referring to such language being "rejected" from inclusion within the original Constitution (which was written before Virginia ratified the compact); nor can you be referring to some supposed 'rejection' of the subject reservation of rights ("...the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression...") from the Bill of Rights - because Virgina did not include such language among the State's suggested amendments.

In fact, your conflation of Virginia's reserved rights, declared, in writing, in the first paragraph of the document, with suggested amendments (clearly labeled as such) in the following paragraphs, is nothing but crude historical revisionism.

(Which is typical of many of your statements here, I might add... ;>)