What, you think they didn't even read them - they just took the states at their word? You'll note that "such ratifications duly authenticated have been received by Congress" means that the ratifications were received. How were they authenticated? Do you think they read them perhaps? If they had objection to any condition contained therein would you assert that they could not refuse the ratification, that they must accept it simply because the states returned it?
The normal thing for someone asserting that they did consider such things to do would be to find actual documented proof, and present it. Go ahead. Let the truth be known, whatever it may be.
The ratifications were returned - and accepted. The proof is in front of you again - there is no need to search for ADDITIONAL evidence - the statement "And whereas the constitution so reported by the Convention and by Congress transmitted to the several legislatures has been ratified in the manner therein declared to be sufficient for the establishment of the same and such ratifications duly authenticated have been received by Congress" is the proof.
"you think"
Do you think
If they had objection
would you assert that
All subjective. Who cares what I think? The question before you is what did the committee which received and reported on the ratifiction think, what were they empowered to do, did they consider the additional resolutions contained in the ratification documents, if so, under what authority, and what was the outcome. These are all entirely rational questions, the answers to which may be found online somewhere in the historical record. A successful appeal to that record is the way to answer the questions, not asking "Huck" what he thinks. What I think and 70 cents will get you a cup of coffee, which is why I provide documentation to support what I say. You never do. Why not? Lazy? Scared? Why not?