The supremacy clause is only relevant to the states in cases where it can be determined that a particular provision in the Constitution restricts state action.
Do you have any citations from that time period to suggest that this is a fact?
Once it is determined that said provision restricts the states, then the supremacy clause will automatically nullify state law to the contrary. But in order for it to do that, it must first be shown that the provision in question truly does apply to the states.
Do you have any citations from that time period to suggest that is a fact? -- I've never heard these particular opinions presented before. -- Anywhere.
The evidence so far is that the founders (of whom Marshall was one, btw) did not consider that the Bill of Rights was among the provisions that restricted the actions of the states.
You have failed to show ~any~ such 'evidence'.
Do you have any citations from that time period to suggest that these suppositions are true?
I thought I was just stating obvious facts about the supremacy clause. You first need to establish that a provision restricts state action before it can nullify state law. I can't put such a self-evident notion in any plainer terms than that.
You have failed to show ~any~ such 'evidence'. Do you have any citations from that time period to suggest that these suppositions are true?
Well, I presented you with the Preamble to the Bill of Rights; and on previous threads I showed you how Section 9 of Article I compares with Section 10 (illustrating the difference between a general prohibition and one that's specific to the states), which you've consistently rejected without saying why.
I've also told you that the reason why people insisted upon a Bill of Rights was that they were afraid of the powers of the new federal government, and wanted those powers curtailed. There's no indication that they were acting out of fear of their own state governments, since (among other things) there was no comparable provision in the Articles of Confederation.
Also, you might want to consider this draft proposal by James Madison for what ultimately became the first amendment: "The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." Source
If the first part already restricted the states, then there would have been no need to repeat it in the second part. Madison seemed to be a fairly literate fellow, so I think we can conclude that he knew how to express himself coherently. If it was his view that general prohibitions only applied to the federal government, then I think it's safe to say that that was the general view of those around him.