What this means is that the Constitution and federal government are supreme in the areas delegated by the states to the Constitution, and state judges and courts are bound to follow the tenets of the Constitution but retain sovereignty in all areas not delegated to the federal government.
No, you've simply made up that bold conclusion, based on your errors that I've lined out.
The clause says that our Constitution [& its BORs/Amendments] are the law of the land, the "Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The idea that the federal government or the Constitution is the law for everything
No one here has made such a 'straw man' claim.
is shot down by Article III, Section 2, which gives the specific and limited jurisdiction of federal courts as: "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.)"
The USSC's judicial power extends to all cases "arising under the Constitution".
My RKBA's is being violated by the State of CA. Do you contend that the USSC has no power to hear my plea?
In your Reply 81 you state (by lining out "and federal government" and then claiming that the states didn't retain all rights not delegated to the federal government) that you don't understand the basic concept of federalism. Read the Constitution and you will know that I am correct:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
[Tenth Amendment, United States Constitution]
And who delegated those powers to the federal government?
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
[Article VII, United States Constitution]
So, we have state delegations that met in order to resolve problems found in the Articles of Confederation, but rather deciding on their own and without prompting from we the people to create a whole new form of government under a new constitution (a fact that you didn't know); nine states' ratification enacting the Constitution; and an amendment stating explicitly that all powers not delegated to the federal government are to be retained by the states or the people.
Now I know at this juncture you will claim that the states merely represent the people and that the powers retained by each are one and the same. But once again, you are wrong. The right to retain arms is an individual right. The right to coin money is a state right that was delegated to the federal government. The right to regulate local commerce, establish requirements for voter eligibility, and amend the Constitution are rights of the states. Also, the fact that the creators of the Constitution, who were members of state delegations, outlined which legal cases were subject to the Constitution and the federal courts with all others remaining in the state and local courts, is just one more point in the case proving that the federal government is restricted to only those powers delegated to it by the states through the Constitution.
Also, you claimed at one point that the Preamble trumps Article VII in stating whether it was the people or the states that created the Constitution. Article VII is a legally-binding passage that requires nine states to ratify; states amend the Constitution; and presidential elections are held on a state/federal level, not a national level (if you're not sure of the difference, please ask). How can you propose (with a straight face) that these facts are subordinated by a phrase in a non-binding introductory section?