Replies

Unfortunately for your theory the States were explicitly prevented from passing upon ratification since they were REQUIRED to establish conventions of the American people gathered by state. Legislatures were to determine how the delegates were to be selected and after that had NO power over the results.

No. The states were required to establish conventions of the ~~American~~ people gathered by state. The legislatures did determine how the people of the state were selected, but the legislature of New York could not determine whom the delegates would be for North Carolina. As the preceding case demonstrated.

Justice Thomas states,

The ratification procedure erected by Article VII makes this point clear. The Constitution took effect once it had been ratified by the people gathered in convention in nine different States. But the Constitution went into effect only "between the States so ratifying the same," Art. VII; it did not bind the people of North Carolina until they had accepted it. In Madison's words, the popular consent upon which the Constitution's authority rests was "given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."
Justice Clarence Thomas, US Term Limits, Inc., et al. v Thorton et al. 514 US 779, 846 (1994) [internal citations omitted]

And again by Justice Thomas,

The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation. Thus, the amendment provision of Article V calls for amendments to be ratified not by a convention of the national people, but by conventions of the people in each State or by the state legislatures elected by those people. Likewise, the Constitution calls for Members of Congress to be chosen State by State, rather than in nationwide elections. Even the selection of the President-surely the most national of national figures-is accomplished by an electoral college made up of delegates chosen by the various States, and candidates can lose a Presidential election despite winning a majority of the votes cast in the Nation as a whole. See also Art. II, § 1, cl. 3 (providing that when no candidate secures a majority of electoral votes, the election of the President is thrown into the House of Representatives, where "the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote"). ... At the same time, however, the people of each State retained their separate political identities. As Chief Justice Marshall put it, "[n]o political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass." McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 403 (1819).
Ibid, 848-849

Our Founders were sufficiently disgusted with state legislatures that they wanted to make sure none ever tried to undo the work of the Ratification Conventions with a state law. State laws cannot affect the Constitution.

Again, no one is claiming that state law overrides the Constitution - where the Constitution has been delegated authority pursuant to an enumerated power. The Constitution requires the states to have republican governments, in which the people of that state assemble in convention as sovereigns of that state, able to amend or alter their form of government. Several states had constitutions recognizing their power to resume their delegated powers:

'We, the people of the republic of Texas, acknowledging with gratitude the grace and beneficence of God ... declare that [a]ll political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and they have at all times the unalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may think expedient.'
Texas Constitution, 1845.
[T]he people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity, and happiness. ... the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government, and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.
Massachusetts Constitution, 1790.

"By these presents" is a mere technical term similiar to saying "We hereby show" or "as the following shows" it is not a term of authority or power.

No. It a legal phrase meaning "this document". From Bouvier Law Dictionary Rev. 6th ed., (1856):

PRESENTS. This word signifies the writing then actually made and spoken of; as, these presents; know all men by these presents, to all to whom these presents shall come.

It means that the state convention declared that it's ratification was made with the explicit understanding that the state could resume the powers the convention was delegating. It's not a difficult concept.

No. The states were required to establish conventions of the ~~American~~ people gathered by state.

Then why does the Constitution refer to "We the People of the United States..." and not as "We the People of New York, New Hampshire, Connecticut, etc."? Why not describe it as an agreement between the states as the Articles of Confederation did? Because it was ratified by the American people and not the people of Virginia, etc.

As Chief Justice Marshall put it, "[n]o political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass." McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 403 (1819)

Let's look at that in context:

"In discussing this question, the counsel for the State of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the Constitution, to consider that instrument not as emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent States. The powers of the General Government, it has been said, are delegated by the States, who alone are truly sovereign, and must be exercised in subordination to the States, who alone possess supreme dominion."

"It would be difficult to sustain this proposition. The convention which framed the Constitution was indeed elected by the State legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States with a request that it mightbe submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each State by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification."

"This mode of proceeding was adopted, and by the convention, by Congress, and by the State legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject -- by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several States -- and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments."

"From these conventions the Constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is "ordained and established" in the name of the people, and is declared to be ordained, 'in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity.' The assent of the States in their sovereign capacity is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it, and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the State Governments. The Constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the State sovereignties."

"It has been said that the people had already surrendered all their powers to the State sovereignties, and had nothing more to give. But surely the question whether they may resume and modify the powers granted to Government does not remain to be settled in this country. Much more might the legitimacy of the General Government be doubted had it been created by the States. The powers delegated to the State sovereignties were to be exercised by themselves, not by a distinct and independent sovereignty created by themselves. To the formation of a league such as was the Confederation, the State sovereignties were certainly competent. But when, "in order to form a more perfect union," it was deemed necessary to change this alliance into an effective Government, possessing great and sovereign powers and acting directly on the people, the necessity of referring it to the people, and of deriving its powers directly from them, was felt and acknowledged by all. The Government of the Union then (whatever may be the influence of this fact on the case) is, emphatically and truly, a Government of the people. In form and in substance, it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit."

The power to change the Constitutional Union always rested with the American people. That never change. Unfortunately the Slavers never tried to change it in the prescribed way. Hence every one of their actions to withdraw had no legal significance. Nor did the preconditions for a justifiable reformation of government exist. There was no tyranny over the South unless it can be accused of tyrannizing itself through its almost total control of the federal government since the Founding.

None of those quotes imply that the Constitution could be changed by a state or any number of states short of the three/fourths required for amendment. And as pointed our above most of the seceding states were not ratifiers but total creations of the federal government. North Carolina and Rhode Island were not part of the initial Congress under the new constitution but no one really believed they would not both be on board when the anomalies preventing it were resolved. Rhode Island's governor even wrote Washington a letter begging that his state not be treated as a foreign country.

As regards the Marshall quote no less a political dreamer than James Madison toyed with the idea of breaking down the states into administrative units.

But the "undifferentiated people" is a straw man in any case since the Constitution was the expression of the National Will of the American people. And that people had expressed itself for a decade before the Revolutionary War.

We considered ourselves Americans only later did the blindness develop which caused some Southerners to think of their state ahead of their nation in all matters.

The first and MOST important power delegated was the power to form a Union. This was done and the means of unmaking it established - the amendment process. Any other attempts were unconstitutional and would not have been allowed by ANY president. State resolutions or enactments to the contrary have no bearing.

By These Presents in no way means that "the state could resume the powers the convention was delegating." It has absolutely nothing to do with such a thing being a mere technical term in a great variety of legal documents. As you said it only means "this document" or a variation of that concept. It adds nothing to the meaning of a document which is just as valid with or without this stock phrase at the top.