You do realize that the Supremacy clause can only operate concerning the foregoing powers previously granted don't you?
It's not the carte blanche everyone believes it to be.
That a law limited to such objects as may be authorised by the constitution, would, under the true construction of this clause, be the supreme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void.
St. George Tucker View of the Constitution
Such a power would allow the federal entity to define its own limits, and that I do not believe the Founders were foolish enough to do.
-----
This is flatly incompatible with state nullification.
Following Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation :
Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.
This is called the Rule of Exclusion. Anything not included is therefore excluded.
Please show me the word 'nullification' in the Constitution.
There is no express or implied power of nullification reserved to the states.