[Huck]

The ratification did not amend the Constitution, it set the terms for acceptance of one party, to be accepted/rejected by the other parties.

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.

[4CJ]

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?

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.