[Pelayo]

If the founders were of a mind that the Constitution was the "Supreme Law of the Land" it would have been quite easy to confine Artilce 6, Clause 2 to exactly that. They didn't and they didn't for a reason.

But that is what they wrote! They used the word "supreme," which means highest, no other meaning can be applied here. “And the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby [i.e. To uphold the Federal Constitution], any Thing in the Constitution [the states' constitutions, not the Federal as is clear from the next few words] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." This all means "In spite of, the Constitution, Treaties , or Laws of any state." Thus the Federal Constitution trumps literally everything.

But that doesn't surprise me, there are so many people who simply ignore the plain wording of the Constitution it has lost its meaning.

I suggest you look up the word notwithstanding, In the context it's pretty clear to me.

[jwalsh07]

You're wrong, states are free to make laws expanding individual rights or in fact creating rights. The courts are constrained by the Constitution and the laws enacted by Congress, theoretically. If not, then there is no reason for legislatures. All we need is a Federal Judiciary and the Constitution. What exactly is the purpose of a legislature described in the Constitution if not to make laws which are the Supreme Law of the Land? Can judges ignore laws and treaties passed by Congress and signed by the executive if they wish? Where does the Constitution authorize an Air Force? Where does the Constitution make rape a criminal act punishable by certain penalties?

The Constitution is not a set of laws, it is a blueprint for government and a statement of individual rights. Rights and liberty interests are entirely different matters. Rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and liberty interests are legislated by legislatures.

Finally there are three elements to the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution, the Laws of the US and treaties. By definition, any law or treaty that in unconstituional can not be a law or a treaty. It is the defintion and deciders of Constituionality that cause so much angst in this country. The federal judicary.