ZZZZZZttttt! Wrong! Hamilton from Federalist 32: The necessity of a concurrent jurisdiction in certain cases results from the division of the sovereign power; and the rule that all authorities, of which the States are not explicitly divested in favor of the Union, remain with them in full vigor, is not a theoretical consequence of that division, but is clearly admitted by the whole tenor of the instrument which contains the articles of the proposed Constitution. We there find that, notwithstanding the affirmative grants of general authorities, there has been the most pointed care in those cases where it was deemed improper that the like authorities should reside in the States, to insert negative clauses prohibiting the exercise of them by the States. The tenth section of the first article consists altogether of such provisions. This circumstance is a clear indication of the sense of the convention, and furnishes a rule of interpretation out of the body of the act, which justifies the position I have advanced and refutes every hypothesis to the contrary.
Dual sovereignty. Mutiple delegations of sovereignty. And to prevent the federal government AND the state from sharing a select few powers, the limitations in Article I, Section 10.
Not complete and utter federal sovereignty. Secession could not be a "like" power, delegated to the federal government and the states - congress did not ratify the Constitution, nor can it rescind it. Au contraire, it remains a state power, as the states are the ratifying agents.