It was not surrendered. You cannot find that among the other Article I, Section 10 surrendered powers.
"Remedial power, when used to negate or prevent an injustice among States, is not an exercise of power for the positive purposes of the general government. And Madison made such a distinction."
True, but only when the states themselves resolve the injustice in a court.
But if the federal government steps in to say, remove a tariff, they do so for the benefit (positive purposes) of the United States, not for the benefit of State A or State B.
"You're still pushing an interpretation of "rather than" as inclusive of what follows."
"A" rather than "B" means "A" is the expected course. It does not preclude "B". You're saying that "B" is not allowed. That's wrong.
The power to RCATSS was surrendered in I.8.3. to Congress. Marshall was clear that State power to regulate commerce was not derived from I.8.3.
"It is obvious, that the government of the Union, in the exercise of its express powers, that, for example, of regulating commerce with foreign nations and among the States, may use means that may also be employed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged powers; that, for example, of regulating commerce within the State.
~snip~
So, if a State, in passing laws on subjects acknowledged to be within its control, and with a view to those subjects, shall adopt a measure of the same character with one which Congress may adopt, it does not derive its authority from the particular power which has been granted, but from some other, which remains with the State, and may be executed by the same means. All experience shows, that the same measures, or measures scarcely distinguishable from each other, may flow from distinct powers; but this does not prove that the powers themselves are identical.
But if the federal government steps in to say, remove a tariff, they do so for the benefit (positive purposes) of the United States, not for the benefit of State A or State B.
That would not be a positive purpose. Removing a tariff by an act of Congress is a negative measure, ie, it removes an injustice. Such an exercise would be consistent with Madison's view.
"A" rather than "B" means "A" is the expected course. It does not preclude "B". You're saying that "B" is not allowed. That's wrong.
Madison used the past tense (was intended). Thus, ["A" was intended, rather than "B"] means ["A was the intent, and "B" was not.] Again, I have cited biblical translations and English grammar sources which say "rather than" means "and not" or "instead of". You have given no cites to counter them. Why have you not done so?