You'll have an easier time learning what Article VI says and means if you underline the full section rather than just half.
You have two separate parts. One part says that laws made by Congress must be pursuant to the Constitution. Then you have a clear semicolon showing that the pursuant to the Constitution part applies to those Congressional laws but not to what follows.
The second part that follows that semicolon shows that Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land.
"The laws" you refer to include the treaties. That's why Article VI refers to them collectively as "the supreme Law of the Land".
--Boot Hill
You're reading way too much into this "pursuance" language. Its only purpose was to make clear that ordinary statutes passed under the old Confederation do not have to be considered the supreme law of the land. It's a given that laws and treaties must not conflict with the Constitution, because it's the Constitution that creates these powers in the first place. You're trying to make a hyperlegalistic argument in order to deny the obvious.
And I found it rather interesting that earlier in the thread, you were demanding that I find a SCOTUS opinion that supports my position, and then when one was presented to you, you blithely claimed that you know better than them anyway. Just shows how determined you are to close your eyes and ears to reality.