This is hogwash. The method of establishment is meaningless. It is the OPERATION of the gubmint that matters, and it is clearly national, which was his intent all along.
You bring up a good point. It was discussed early at the constitutional convention whether ratification of the constitution for a national government should be by popular vote or done in a federal (state by state) manner. On one hand the argument was that a national government should be established based solely on the national vote. A national government would have more legitimacy if it was based on the popular opinion alone. It would be hard to justify the national government if a majority of the voters rejected it but a majority of the states agreed to it.
On the other hand, the federal argument for ratification was made and it eventually won out, of course. The smaller states also won the argument over the arrangement about the makeup of the Senate. Once the argument over the Senate was lost by the “nationalists” it was hard to argue for a national ratification of the constitution.
The federal makeup of the Senate has become less important since the ratification of the 17th amendment. The state legislatures lost most of their influence at that point. They could no longer threaten a Senator with removal.
I also think it’s interesting to note that there are two national parts to the federal government, the house and the presidency. The Supreme Court it is mixed as it is derived from a presidential (national) nomination and federal (Senate) consent.