If you want evidence that a company wanted to build new headquarters, do you need to ask a committee what they decided, or simply look at the skyscaper?
The ratifications are in two parts - the actual ratification - with it's statement of facts - that certain terms are understood, that certain rights cannot be denied, that certain actions are reserved. It then states that these reservations and stipulations are irrevocable, and under these circumstances - as evidenced by the document in question (the ratification) the state ratifies the Constitution.
After the ratification they present a list of proposed amendments. The ratification did not amend the Constitution, it set the terms for acceptance of one party, to be accepted/rejected by the other parties.
There you go again. Why don't you just explain for me why you are so unwilling to refer to the actual documentation? Why do you insist on crafting your own personal arguments on why you shouldn't have to refer to actual documentation, rather than referring to it? Why not just supply supporting documents? I am sure you can find all sorts of goodies to misquotre and misattribute, forcing someone else to dig into it, find out that you are being dishonest, and demonstrate it. I don't mind doing it when I have time. I learn from it.
Not according to the evidence. It merely declared their understanding of the meaning of the Constitution, as a reassurance to those who ended up voting against it anyway (Patrick Henry, et al--but you wouldn't know that if you didn't read the actual debates and see the votes, etc.) Second, who accepted the ratifications? Hmm? Congress did. And on what basis did Congress ratify the documents? Under what criteria? Let's look and see:
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
--From Resolution of the Congress, of September 13, 1788
Well, judging from the resolution, it appears the Congress had two questions to answer: did they assent to the Constitution, and is the document (the present, if you will) authentic (or is it a forgery drawn up by James Madison and his evil monarchist cohorts.) That's what is in writing. Did the committee even consider, discuss or debate the various declarations of the various ratfications? It is not indicated by this documentation that they did. 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.