The primer was for your benefit. You have no coherent concept of what sovereignty is, as your post goes on to show.
Certainly you are not going to try and argue that Jefferson was a federalist when the Constitution was written.
Jefferson was not a Federalist. Allow me to quote him verbatim:
You say that I have been dished up to you as an anti-Federalist, and ask me if it be just. My opinion was never worthy enough of notice to merit citing; but since you ask it I will tell it you. I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all. Therefore I protest to you I am not of the party of Federalists. But I am much farther from that than of the Anti-Federalists.
This is why your view of sovereignty is incoherent:
You wrote
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution (not right to sovereignty was delegated to the US)
There is no such thing as a "right to sovereignty" in a constitutional republic. Sovereignty consists in a set of powers, not a right. Only persons have rights. Governments have no rights, they have powers.
Under the United States Constitution, all of the powers associated with sovereignty in the common law tradition are specifically delegated to the United States.
How can an individual state be a sovereign if it has no power to declare a state of war? To conclude a treaty? To regulate the goods trading in and out of its ports and cities? To regulate the value of money?
Sovereignty isn't an empty word: it means something in the real world. And an entity that by law is not entitled to exercise the above powers is not a sovereign government.
“The primer was for your benefit. You have no coherent concept of what sovereignty is, as your post goes on to show.”
And yet, you fail to address any of the points I made demonstrating that the Constitution absolutely was NOT a document designed to usurp sovereignty but a compact outlining how sovereign states could remain sovereign while working together. Even children understand this, which explains why you ignore it.
You are the Vizzini to my Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
“Jefferson was not a Federalist. Allow me to quote him verbatim:”
LOL! Thanks for proving me right. Wasn’t necessary. I already knew that. (You sure you know which side of the argument you are taking? Hint: Me saying that Jefferson was not a federalist is NOT the same as saying he was an anti-federalist. Didn’t want to leave you in a confused state.)
Well. All I can do provide the facts. I can’t force comprehension. You’ll just have to continue on as you are.
Thanks for the entertaining exchange, though.