Indeed. Since you brought it up. Here is the declaration of the understanding under which Virginia ratified the Constitution in June, 1788: ""We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceeding of the federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that 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, and that every power, not granted thereby, remains with them, and at their will; that, therefore, no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States." It will be noted that this declaration was from a group of men embodying the sovereignty of the people of Virginia. If their understanding on the ability of the people to resume their delegated powers was in error, then the ratification of the Constitution which included that understanding must have been refused by the resulting Federal government. I would be most happy if you could point me to an historical document in which Congress (or any Federal agency of the founding period) declared that Virginia's ratification was unacceptable as offered, that Virginia had to ratify without any such reservation.
Respectfully
D J White