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... ;>)
The following states ratification documents included NO signing statements or suggested amendments: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Maryland, South Carolina & Vermont.
The following states ratification documents included a total of over 200 paragraphs of suggested amendments, Bills of Rights and signing statements: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina & Rhode Island. Of these 200+ paragraphs, three use the words "reassumed" or "resumed" and "powers," but all three in relation to the people, not a state. And none use terms like "secession" or "withdrawal from the Union."
Of those 200+ signing paragraphs & recommended amendments, some were duplicates or later combined to make up the Constitution's Bill of Rights. ALL the rest, including "reassumed powers," have no legal standing whatever. That's my argument.
Now, you can easily refute my argument by simply providing links to Founding Documents which specifically recognize that any of those non-accepted recommendations have ANY standing in United States law.
Indeed, a logical thought process (which a disciple of Ayn Rand will surely appreciate) might proceed as follows: can words like "secession," or any of the three states' paragraphs referring to "reassumed powers" be found in:
So what are we really talking about here? Well, seems pretty obvious to me: secessionists' w*t dr**ms, or as the Disney folks might say: Constitutional Imagineering -- analagous to our liberals claims of finding stuff in its "penumbras & emanations." ;-)