[You]: "The People" doesn't mean the people of one state, but rather the people of the entire nation. Just as "the People" in the preamble, and the first, second, fourth and various amendments refers to the people of the entire US.
So you say. Consider the consequences of your interpretation in the case of the people of one state or a small group of states being oppressed or taken advantage of by other states that made up the majority of the people of the whole United States. This is precisely what some in the ratification conventions were worried about. Your interpretation would basically give power to the people of the oppressing states to continue oppressing or taking advantage of smaller states.
New York delegates were worried about being stuck in a union whose states would not ratify Bill of Rights type amendments that would basically protect the people of New York (and also the people of other states) from a possible future oppressive federal government like the one they had just fought a war to leave. Earlier in their deliberations the NY ratifiers wanted to make their ratification conditional on such amendments being passed within a certain time period. They later removed the conditional requirement but gave themselves an out in the statement above, a statement that they held could not "be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution." As far as I know, no other state refused to accept New York's ratification.
Another thought. The people as a whole cannot very well "reassume" powers that the people as a whole never had and still do not have. As Justice Clarence Thomas has said:
... it would make no sense to speak of powers as being reserved to the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation. [Justice Clarence Thomas, US Term Limits v Thornton, 514 US 779, (1995)]
In the event that a people of a state were oppressed, that gives rise to a controversy, to be resolved per Article III.
Of course the peole could reassume power by means of an Article V Convention.
I think the US education system would need to be improved before that would be a good idea.
Just think of how few people know that Confederate General Hood burned Atlanta.