Notice that the term "supreme Law of the Land" (the case is what appears on the U.S. Government websites and in the original constitution AFAIK) is utilized rather than law of the "lands".This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. --Article VI, Section II of the Constitution of the United States.
Re: the "Land" (not "the Lands")
The "land" is a singularity and could only refer to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States rather than the states of America. Furthermore, treaties cannot trump the Constitution because they must be made "under the laws of the United States". Much evidence points to the fact that the Districts or Territories of the United States are "the land" rather than the organic states of America. It seems moreso that the Constitution of the United States was for formation of democratic government of territories ceded to the United States by the States or which were acquired through warfare and remain territories or possessions.
It is possible for a treaty to be binding only upon the territories of United States and to be sold as if it were ratified or signed as if the United States entered into it as a "high contracting party". (Sedition by syntax.)
Re: "supreme Law of the Land"
In the territorial United States the basis of due process is stated at Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States. States created by the United States are wholly different from states which the United States did not create.