Actually they are, when considered in the proper context in which the statement was made. That statement was made by an individual State referring to the fact that the people of the individual States could reassume the powers the individual States ceded to the Union. It was pointing out that the Union was only binding in terms of the voluntary participation of the people of each State. Context, context, context. I also see you are attempting to distort the issue by ignoring the "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness." clauses listed by multiple States as part of their ratifications.
Not that your quote matters anyway since no conditions were accepted by Congress. There WERE NO CONDITIONAL RATIFICATIONS. Conventions had one question to answer with Yes or No. No "Maybe", no "Yes, but" Only "yes" or "no"
Wrong again. The fact that Congress accepted those conditions as part of the 'yes' means that they were an understood and recognised part of the bargain, otherwise it would have been a fraudulent contract, and non-binding to begin with.
Madison NEVER stated that any state had the right to withdraw after joining the new government and everything in the constitution argues against such a claim.
"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its voluntary act" - James Madison, "Father of the Constitution"
ZZZZttttt!! Wrong. You're no lawyer or student of Constitutional history.
From the Ratification of New York state:
Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration,--We, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the state of New York, do, by these presents [Bouvier 1856 Law Dictionary: [t]his word signifies the writing then actually made and spoken of; as, these presents; know all men by these presents, to all to whom these presents shall come] , assent to and ratify the said Constitution.Rhode Island & Providence Plantations wrote it thusly:
Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments hereafter mentioned will receive an early and mature consideration, and, conformably to the fifth article of said Constitution, speedily become a part thereof,--We, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said Constitution
The Constitution probably wouldn't have been ratified if it said that states couldn't resume their sovereign powers if needed. If I remember correctly, even with conditions the ratification vote was fairly close in Virginia and New York. It is hard to see a practical Union forming without those two major states.
Apparently, conditions placed on ratification of the Constitution by the states that formed the Union can be ignored, but the condition placed on Southern states that they must ratify the proposed 14th Amendment in order to regain representation in Congress must be followed.
Then again, Justice O'Connor ignores the 14th Amendment. Perhaps we should not allow Justice O'Connor and the liberal Justices the right to vote on Supreme Court cases until they accept the 14th Amendment. After all, if it was OK to put this condition on Southern states, it ought to be OK to put it on Supreme Court justices.