Wrong.
It was rejected. Virginia or NY could have made all the proposals they wanted, they were rejected. Their acceptance as part of the compact was not conditional on their list of particulars.
That was reaffirmed by the JULY NY FINAL vote for ratification.
We also know, when secession was tried - it failed. Badly.
Deal with it.
It didn't "fail". The states legally seceded from the union, as was their Constitutional right, at which time the federal govt, illegally and immorally, invaded the Soveriegn state of Virginia and proceeded to murder hundreds of thousands of loyal, freedom loving, Constituion believing American Citizens so as to impose oppressive federal control over a free people. Virginia NEVER excluded their right to secede when they ratified, neither did NY or RI. There was NO denial of the right to secede prior to their ratification and people much smarter than either you or I, people who actually attended the conventions, wrote and signed the Constitution and wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence disagree with your pov.
secession is not legal...
even the rightiest of the right justices on the supreme court antonin scalia agrees.
but you know better, i'm sure.
I don't give a crap what some bought and paid for judge says, the FACT is that the Constitution makes NO mention of secession at all so it's not a matter for the 9 whores in DC to decide anyway. The FACT is that NY, VA and RI refused to ratify the Constitution unless their right to leave the union, at their discretion, was maintained, NO DENIAL of this was ever made, therefore their right to secede was and is valid and a right granted one state automatically goes to ALL states. And I never said I know better, I just gave you the historical facts from the actual poeple who where there, and the supporting documentation from the Virgninia delagation, which was introduced and passed by resolution PRIOR to them ever ratifying the Constitution. The opinion of the nine whore is irelevent as I don't recognize their right to decide what is and what isn't constitutional anyway as the Constitution DOES NOT give them that right, they usurped that right in Madison vs Marbury. The Constitutionality of law was and is given, by the Constitution, to the people, NOT to any supreme court and Thomas Jefferson warned us of what would happen if we ever allowed the court to usurp the power of "We the People", as represented by the Congress.
Thomas Jefferson
to William C. Jarvis in 1820:
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
and to Edward Livingstone in 1825:
"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."
The Supreme Court and Judicial Review
Judicial Review
The Supreme Court of the United States spends much, if not most, of its time on a task which is not delegated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. That task is: Hearing cases wherein the constitutionality of a law or regulation is challenged. The Supreme Court's nine Justices attempt to sort out what is, and what is not constitutional. This process is known as Judicial Review. But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government.
Since the constitution does not give this power to the court, you might wonder how it came to be that the court assumed this responsibility. The answer is that the court just started doing it and no one has put a stop to it. This assumption of power took place first in 1794 when the Supreme Court declared an act of congress to be unconstitutional, but went largely unnoticed until the landmark case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. Marbury is significant less for the issue that it settled (between Marbury and Madison) than for the fact that Chief Justice John Marshall used Marbury to provide a rationale for judicial review. Since then, the idea that the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutionality issues has become so ingrained that most people incorrectly believe that the Constitution granted this power.
Powers of the Supreme Court
Article III of the Constitution provides for the establishment of a Judicial branch of the federal government and Section 2 of that article enumerates the powers of the Supreme Court. Here is Section 2, in part:
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
to Controversies between two or more States;
between a State and Citizens of another State;
between Citizens of different States;
between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Feel free to examine the entire text of Article III to assure yourself that no power of Judicial Review is granted by the Constitution
http://http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html