When you research the ratifying process, you will discover that it was the people of the respective states who ratified the Constitution, each state ratifying for itself and only for itself. It is therefore the unquestioned right of each state to abrogate its ratification, once again
each state abrogating for itself and only for itself.
@Duncan ,
In answer to your argument above, I present the reasoning of the Supreme Court case of
McCulloch v. Maryland.
"The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone posses supreme domination.
"It would be difficult to sustain this proposition. The convention, which framed the constitution, was indeed elected by the state legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretensions to it. It was then reported to the then existing congress of the United States, with a request, that it might be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification. This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the convention, by congress, and by the state legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner, in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several states--and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines, which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their states.
But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be measures of the people themselves, or become the measure of state governments.
"
From these conventions the constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is 'ordained and established' in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained 'in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to them selves and to their posterity.' The assent of the states, in their sovereign capacity, is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people.
But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the state governments. The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties."
I would suggest the following for further information on the ratification of the constitution.
Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788, by Pauline Maier.
America's Constitution: A Biography, by Akhil Reed Amar.
The Constitution: An Introduction, by Michael Stokes Paulsen and Luke Paulsen.
The Debate on the Constitution; Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification Part One and Part Two.
Unionblue