You've managed to change the subject to my posting style. Fine.
I do deny that the phrase you recur to in Article VI, "Supreme Law of the Land", defines the Sovereign. As I tried to explain above, the Sovereign isn't a law, charter, or document -- it's an Entity, a living thing or person. In the Roman Republic, the Senate was the Sovereign, notwithstanding that the magistrates wielded awful powers. It was from the Senate that all power and legitimacy flowed.....except when they created a dictator, who was given the power of life and death, which the Romans took pains to advertise by giving the dictator an escort of twenty-four lictors bearing the rods and axes.
When I say that the States in the 1780's were the Sovereign, I mean that the States as the embodiment of the People of the States were the Sovereign, since all power and legitimacy flowed from them, and they were each supreme within their borders. Article II of the Articles of Confederation, Main tells us, specifically guaranteed the sovereignty of the States explicitly. But there is no parallel statement about sovereignty in the Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause isn't one. It speaks only to a standard of law, not to political Sovereignty in the community.
In postcolonial America, the State was its People, and the People of that state were the State, and its constitution and government were their creatures.