[BroJoeK]

Triple: "So is it your position that under *some* circumstances Virginia *has* the right to unilaterally secede?"

There is a "right of revolution" when government becomes intolerable, when all lawful recourses have failed, and when serious issues of justice are involved.
But a "right of revolution" does not mean it is "right to revolt" if revolution is doomed to fail.
A failed revolt, as our Founders well knew meant:

"We must all hang together, gentlemen, or we will most assuredly hand separately" -- Ben Franklin, July 4, 1776

So I'll repeat: our Founders gave two acceptable conditions for disunion / secession:

1. Mutual consent.
   I think the simplest form of that would be a law passed by Congress, signed by the President.

2. A serious material breach of contract, such as "oppression", "usurpation" or "injury".
   I'd say the US Supreme Court would be a good body to rule on such claims.

Founders did not approve of unilateral secession "at pleasure", meaning for no serious constitutional reason.
But that was exactly what happened in 1860, and when people talk "secession" today, that's the pattern they refer to.

I say, secession as it happened in 1860 was not Constitutional then, and would not be so today.

Lawful, peaceful secession could be 100% constitutional.

[Triple]

So you think Virginia must consult at least one branch of the federal government in order to exercise a right it retained in its conditional ratification of the constitution.

Nonsense!

Virginia alone must and retained the right to determine if the conditions of its ratification are broken.