Not really. I don't believe I have professed any posession of authority here and unlike you, that object is not what I prefer to build my arguments around due to its inherent weakness. By contrast, I am simply asserting a logically inescapable set of conclusions drawn from factually sound premises about the constitution itself. Broken down they are as follows. If you dispute any of this, please say so:
P1. The Constitution is supreme to federal law and supersedes any federal law that conflicts with it.
P2. Amendment 10 is part of the Constitution.
C1. Since the Constitution is always supreme to federal law, amendment 10, which is part of the Constitution, must be supreme to federal law.
C2. Since federal laws that violate the Constitution are unconstitutional, federal laws that violate amendment 10 must be unconstitutional.
Speak up if you dispute any of this. Wlat-speak attempts to turn this into a battle of appeals to authority will earn you no points as they are inherently fallacious.