[DoodleDawg]

What you forget is that Virginia's ratification also included the words: "...in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, 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 Foederal 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..."

So the fact that Virginia added that disclaimer to her ratification document is meaningless if Virginia chose to resume those powers, i.e. secede, in a manner that was illegal under the Constitution she agreed to be bound by. As it happens, unilateral secession as practiced by the Confederate states was not legal. Madison said so long before the Southern rebellion. Chase said so in the Texas v. White decision after the rebellion was over.

[FLT-bird]

The fact that a treaty or in this case was legally binding upon the citizens of the state in no way indicates that the state was agreeing to forever bind itself and surrender its sovereignty. Any law passed by the state government that does not conflict with the state constitution is binding upon the citizens.