Utter tripe. The federal law must be PURSUANT to the Constitution. Otherwise, the power not being prohibited remains with the state.
I don't argue that the federal government is sovereign or that states may not be "sovereign" in certain areas, simply that a state that agreed to the Constitution would have a hard time logically asserting an absolute sovereignty of the sort that lentulus claims for the states.
John Marshall stated that a delegated authority may be recalled, the states are the contracting parties, not the federal government, and it's a union of states not a fixed number, nowhere does it state that a party may not leave. New York cannot craft a single law that Georgia must abide by and vice versa. The federal government cannot craft a federal law that Georgia must obey, unless that law is pursuant to a clause in the Constitution, and even then only if Georgia agrees to abide by it. Georgia refused to agree with a Supreme Court decision, and out of that we have the 11th Amendment.
The lunatic John McCain is warning of illegal immigrants revolting if they fail to get their way, what McCain had better worry about is US revolting - it's pathetic that illegals are treated better than my family who have been here for over 300 years (indefinite counting Native ancestors).
I do believe I said as much:
Obviously, if a power that's forbidden to the federal government is involved or if the federal government oversteps its authority, federal law isn't supreme in that area.
You say:
John Marshall stated that a delegated authority may be recalled, the states are the contracting parties, not the federal government, and it's a union of states not a fixed number, nowhere does it state that a party may not leave.
It looks like that's precisely what Marshall did not say in McCullough vs. Maryland (1819). So far as I understand him he allowed that the People could modify the Constitution, but that the federal government was not a mere creature of the states. It's a very subtle point, but that's my understanding.