The ratification documents are artifacts, not legally-binding agreements. They did not, and do not have the force of law.
The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty —; in a word, secede.
There was much debate over this. In the end they all ratified the US Constitution.
If you really believe that, you should surrender your law degree--or at least your license to practice. If they do not have the force of law, the States involved would not be in the Union; would never have been in the Union.
Read the second para to Walter Williams’ column.
I disagree with you on that one. The ratification documents were the formal legal acceptance of the Constitution. But all of them also contained language, like Virginia's, which in one way or another said: "...do by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People according to an authentic Copy hereto annexed in the Words following..." Which means the ratified the Constitution as passed out of the convention, not the Constitution that they thought was passed out of the convention. They can add all the assumptions to the document that they wanted, if the Constituiton doesn't support them then they're meaningless.
I assume that you can point to where others of the original 13 states objected back then to NY's, VA's, and RI's resume powers statements? Or did they accept those ratification documents? Forming a Union without New York and Virginia would have made a very impractical Union, IMO.
[Jacquerie]: The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty —; in a word, secede.
[rockrr]: There was much debate over this. In the end they all ratified the US Constitution.
The Charleston (SC) Daily Courier newspaper of May 17, 1861 reported that six delegates to the 1788 Virginia ratification convention who were elected to oppose ratification changed their minds to vote for ratification because the "powers might be resumed" provision was included in their ratification document. That provision made Virginia’s ratification possible, and similar statements in New York's and Rhode Island's ratifications probably did for their states as well.
As I remember, Rhode Island's populace voted ten to one against ratification (the only time the Constitution itself was voted on by a state's voting population rather than by convention delegates). A small RI convention later ratified the Constitution with a "Powers of Government may be reassumed" statement. I believe also, but may be wrong, that New York's ratification convention had more anti-federalists than federalists and that reassume powers statement may have made NY's ratification possible.
Four other states advocated Tenth Amendment like statements in their ratification documents (NC, SC, MA, NH), and Jefferson Davis cited the Tenth Amendment as justification/authority for secession [Link]. Those four states along with VA, NY, and RI, make a majority of the thirteen original states either reserving powers not delegated to the states or specifically reserving the right to resume powers. The Constitution did not give other states the power to block states from seceding from this experimental form of government.
Virginia's resume powers statement and those of New York and Rhode Island get conveniently ignored or dismissed by most secession opponents on these threads. By the way, Virginia cited their resume powers statement in their secession document of 1861. James Madison and John Marshall were on the committee that put together the Virginia ratification document including its resume powers statement.
New York's "Powers of Government may be reassumed" statement was followed by this:
... Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution ... We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution.
That and the NY reassume powers statement were voted for by Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, two of the three authors of "The Federalist Papers" that explained the Constitution.
“The ratification documents are artifacts, not legally-binding agreements. They did not, and do not have the force of law.”
Sweet! That means that ratification was meaningless, and thus there was no legal Union!
Those three dudes who wrote up the Federalist Papers were just engaged in verbal masturbation!
And Lincoln’s actions killed over half a million people for nothing!
Thanks rockrr, for your support and insight!