As Club has dutifully shown you, VA was EXACTLY playing by the rules.  Ol' (not) honest Abe was throwing a war to "protect and defend" the constitution with his right hand, and with his left he was holding his peener and whizzing all over same said document.  The bottom line is, Abe can't claim any moral high ground.  The abolishionists can, but not Abe.  He was a corrupt azzholio politician who was merely looking at his chance of term 2 going down the chitter unless he forced the wayward states to stay.  It wasn't VA that was in contravention, it was the US and her president.

As an aside, it was widely accepted at the time that there were conditions in the ratification of the constitution.  I think only two states were willing to even ratify the thing without the Bill of Rights.  If you do a proper exegesis of the document and compare it to the other writings of the time (as Az, I'm sure you have done a little) you can clearly see that the founding fathers would have wanted nothing to do with the intrusive, nanny-state, big-brother governement we have today.  Here's a zinger for ya!  That little clause that says (and I'm paraphrasing): Any powers not specifically granted herein this document are reserved for the states, or the people.
[right][snapback]628645[/snapback][/right]

There are so many responses to this - but it's time for me to go drink beer and play Golden Tee.  I'll check back when I can...

Edit to add: 
[right][snapback]628662[/snapback][/right]

Your bait is starting to stink. 

There is nothing post facto about the links.  New York and Virginia were not states until they ratified the Constitution. 
[right][snapback]628654[/snapback][/right]

it's not bait, moran.  the document you provided is dated june 26, 1788.  virginia ratified the constitution on sept. 17, 1787, some 10 months earlier. 
[right][snapback]628667[/snapback][/right]

As an aside, it was widely accepted at the time that there were conditions in the ratification of the constitution.  I think only two states were willing to even ratify the thing without the Bill of Rights. 

. . . . .

That little clause that says (and I'm paraphrasing): Any powers not specifically granted herein this document are reserved for the states, or the people.
[right][snapback]628645[/snapback][/right]

The Congress shall have Power
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

There is nothing post facto about the links.  New York and Virginia were not states until they ratified the Constitution.  Those are their ratification documents which represent the contract between the individual states and the Union or federal government therefore, IMHO, those are the contractually binding documents, not the Constitution.  When they did, they said fine but we can bail if we want to.  Seeing as how both are still States I'd say we have offer and acceptance, ergo, the terms of both being states are conditional based upon their desire to be so.  Given Atricle IV, Section 2 of the Constitution, I've presented my case as to why the Southern states had a right of secession.
[right][snapback]628654[/snapback][/right]

now I want your link because you are wrong.  Virginia became a state on June 26, 1788.  Virginia and New York were the last two to ratify the Constitution.  I'm pretty sure you are confusing the date the Constitutional Convention adopts the Constitution and the delegates to the Convenion signed it, not the date it was ratified by the states.

I'll see your  and raise you a  and  .
[right][snapback]628685[/snapback][/right]

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, G. Washington-Presid. and deputy from Virginia

Virginia
John Blair-
James Madison Jr.

Oh, and another little FYI - Lincoln the Log admitted WV as a SLAVE state.  Just as long as they were loyal to the union, though...


[right][snapback]628692[/snapback][/right]

Apparently I'm not quite ready to go drink and play golf, so here's a quick reply....
There was a demand for a Bill of Rights and ... ta da! - there it is, as part of the Constitution. 

Here are some other interesting clauses:
And there's this one too:

Are you seriously arguing that the ratification documents trump the Constitution, given the Supremacy Clause?  Do you have any support for this argument other than that it is your HO?
[right][snapback]628712[/snapback][/right]

Come on I'm having gas logs installed on one of the fireplaces and wanted to get the wife some gifts we'll open tonight, alone but I can't pul myself away from this thread.
[right][snapback]628743[/snapback][/right]

Look, the Ratification documents establish the terms of each states' joining the Union.  Given the fact that Virginia and New York are members of the Union, wouldn't basic contract law dictate that to be the case? 

Hey Az, thanks for the link agreeing with me, see yours is the date the delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution, not the dates in which the individual states ratified it and it was not binding upon the states until they ratified same. 

Come on I'm having gas logs installed on one of the fireplaces and wanted to get the wife some gifts we'll open tonight, alone but I can't pul myself away from this thread.
[right][snapback]628743[/snapback][/right]

Look, the Ratification documents establish the terms of each states' joining the Union.  Given the fact that Virginia and New York are members of the Union, wouldn't basic contract law dictate that to be the case? 
[right][snapback]628743[/snapback][/right]

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725]  arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that cthe people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.' 12 Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. [74 U.S. 700, 726]  When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union

are you saying ratification 10 months later altered the terms of the agreement they signed 10 months earlier?  did it alter the terms just for virginia, or for all 13 states?  were these ratification documents incorporated as part of the agreement (the constitution) and given binding effect?
[right][snapback]628770[/snapback][/right]

So what you are saying is that each state could enter the union on its own terms, and thus the rights of state X and its citizens vis a vis the federal government can be different than those of state Y and its citizens?

I don't think your contract analogy holds up either.  What Virginia and New York did was say "okay, this is what we think this contract means" and then they signed it.  That does not mean they altered the terms of the contract in any way.  Their interpretation was in no way incorporated into the Constitution either by adding in language to reflect it, or my incorporating it by reference.
[right][snapback]628774[/snapback][/right]

YOUR DATES ARE NOT THE DATES THAT THE CONSTITUTION BECAME BINDING, MORAN.  YOUR DATES ARE THE DATES THE DELEGATES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION APPROVED IT.  Other than the purpose of posterity, your date is meaningless.

Answer me two questions and then I probably have to go.

1.  What was the purpose of the Federalist Papers?
2.  When was the 1st one published?

[right][snapback]628780[/snapback][/right]

Remarkable the answer I was looking for was not Bush.  [right][snapback]628843[/snapback][/right]

What President has had the following characteristics:  [right][snapback]628843[/snapback][/right]

Dance for me.
[right][snapback]628665[/snapback][/right]

If you are right, Az, and the constitution was binding on September 17, 1787 why even put it to the states to be ratified? 
[right][snapback]628871[/snapback][/right]

[right][snapback]628876[/snapback][/right]

to clarify if i hadn't already...i'm not arguing that the constitution was binding and effectual on 9-17-87.  i'm arguing: 1) that the document they all agreed to on 9-17-87 is what became binding once all the states had ratified it; and 2) that no individual state could introduce new terms to that agreement simply by saying so, unless the agreement itself provided for that, and i don't think it did.
[right][snapback]628886[/snapback][/right]

well, it's 3:30 and most everybody is gone.  i guess there's not much reason to stick around and pretend i'm working, so uhh....

time to hit the egg nog and dance

edit: by mutual agreement, of course.  club?
[right][snapback]628899[/snapback][/right]

that's pretty good, spain.  i know you didn't come up with that by yourself.
[right][snapback]628873[/snapback][/right]