You're right... You are no connoisseur of law. It is NOT a prohibition of what we are talking about -- civil liberties and such. It does not, for example, prevent a state from establishing a church or engagin in censorship. Sorry.
Sorry you've lost the concept of "civil debate"..
I probably wouldn't have bothered to respond if you had left out the snide remark..
Art. VI, by extension, DOES involve civil liberties..
As per your earlier arguments, you are discussing the Original Consitution, w/o the Bill of Rights..
Under such construction, Any Law passed by Congress, "pursuant to the constitution" is the "Supreme Law of the Land" and, "The Judges in every State shall be bound thereby"..
Therefore, the Congress could pass federal law on any and all Civil Rights and the states would be bound to obey that law..
You are correct that, w/o the Bill of Rights, there was no prohibition against states doing what they wished concerning the creation of a state church, or engaging in censorship, either of the individual, or the press...
However, there was also no prohibition against the congress passing such laws as well, pro or con those issues.. and the states then being legally bound to respect those laws...
Article VI is therefore a prohibition on the states.. a very broad prohibition stating in effect, "we're the new guys in town, and you're going to have to do as we say."..