From your link:
Bolding is mine.
Your link does not say what you claim it to say. What Madison advocated here is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers ended up creating, a nation where the individual states have sovereignty but that sovereignty is subordinate to the Republic's sovereignty in all cases which require uniformity. As Madison himself indicates, this is the minimum required for a republic to function. Madison was clearly not advocating "strip[ing] the states of their sovereignty in its entirety". Nor did he say that sovereign states were incompatible with national sovereignty. Nor did he want to grant the central government the ability to veto state legislature laws that it deemed improper. Only in specific areas, in all cases which require uniformity, was Madison advocating the federal government overriding the states' laws. In those cases, yes, an absolute federal power must exist, else each state would be free to enact legislation nullifying federal legislation and policy, and there can be no republic. We would have remained a loose confederation of states as often at odds with each other as with other nations. But Madison was clearly not advocating "strip[ing] the states of their sovereignty in its entirety", but rather stripping away just enough state sovereignty to make the republic function.
Thank you for that intervention. I was about to commit to virtual paper a scathing insult which would have served no purpose beyond calling out someone's blatant dishonesty - on the Internet no less.
This is why we have mods, to remind us that it's just the Internet and there's no point in getting all pissy about it.