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.
In every judicial decision, do the justices have to cite within the entire history of English common-law to support their decision? Do they have to instruct & teach the English language? Why supply "supporting" documents - when the document in question contains the proof of what is being requested? Just like a building is proof of the intent to build it - it stands own it's own.
Do you honestly think that men such as Madison, Tyler, Lee, Mason, and John Marshall (ring a bell) were ignorant, and crafted a ratification that was illegal? Why would they include the phrase "the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them" if it was simply declaratory? Why assert that such rights could not be violated? Why state that their ratification was done with "these impressions" and evidenced by "these presents" if it was simply declaratory? Why put it in writing at all?