"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution."
Gong! Thanks for playing, but no, you'll have to re-read Article 6 again. You failed the first time through.
Note carefully that there is a semicolon after "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;". This means that the laws passed by Congress *MUST* be made pursuant to our Constitution. Then, after the clear semicolon, treaties are next stated to be the supreme law of our land alongside our Constitution: "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
Uhh, those aren't my words up there - you'll need to take that up with the Supreme Court, and explain to them how they've misread the Constitution. In the meantime, you're wrong, and treaties are manifestly inferior to the Constitution itself. So says the Court, so says the law. QED.
Re-read the excerpt again. You failed the first time through. Note carefully that the reason for the semicolon is clearly explained.
[The] debates [which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution] as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect.