The much abused "supremecy clause" reads almost as you posted. You forgot, "and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,"
You read these words and somehow translated them in your mind to read that the states can do nothing contrary to the Constitution. That is wrong. The sum of the Articles is that the federal government established in the articles may do nothing not specifically allowed by the Constitution, and the 10th amendment establishes that the federal government has no power not specifically granted while the states reserve to themsleves every power not specifically delegated or surrendered.
Better minds than yours have groped for proof within the articles that the framers wished to assign to the states an inferior status to the federal government. The proof isn't there. There is no language anywhere in the articles or in the BoR which establishes federal supremeacy over the states outside a few narrowly defined areas. The elevation of the federal government to supremacy over the states didn't become part of the Constitution until after Lincoln's war.
You're sorely misinformed and self deluded on this subject. Here's another one for you to defend:
"The secessionist states clearly violated almost every part of section 10 -- especially that last clause -- and would by any standard be considered in a state of insurrection."
Obviously you don't know what secession means. The seceded states withdrew from the union formed by the Constitution and were no longer bound by the provisions they had agreed to while part of the union. As for where the states found the sovereign power to secede, read the 10th amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Unless you can cite by Article, section and clause the text of the Constitution which prohibits secession or where the power of secession is surrendered or made conditional on the approval of the other states, then the provisions of Article I, section 10 can no more be said to be binding on a state which has withdrawn from the US than they would be upon Canada or any other foreign state.
Go ahead and defend this idea of yours. So far, you're just providing light entertainment here.
The Constitution did not form the Union. The Union predates the Constitution. The Constitution was formed and agreed to by the States acting in union.
Please read my post 215 and 624 for my rationale, which you are of course free to attack.
...and were no longer bound by the provisions they had agreed to while part of the union.
What you are stating as true is what is in dispute.
Well, golly. I have several times in this thread cited Article, section, and clause. Apparently you missed those. So I'll give you the thumbnail sketch:
Article VI says that the Constitution is superior to any state laws or constitutions that might say something contrary to the Constitution. Acts of secession are by definition contrary to the Constitution, and hence they are disallowed by the Constitution.
Also, you'll note that Article VI requires the elected officials of each state to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Among other things, it means that they are bound not to pass laws or amendments that violate the Constitution. Seeing as how secession explicitly abrogates the Constitutional bound that was ratified by each state, acts of secession obviously do not uphold the Constitution. Thus, elected officials cannot constitutionally secessd.
Article and clause.
As for your silly little insults, please don't.