Misunderstanding the Supremacy Clause

Just to help prove your point about the gross misunderstanding of the supremacy clause I am reading For the People by Akhil R Amar and Alan Hirsch. Their main thesis is that the Constitution is based on popular sovereignty. As such the people of the states have the right to bypass Article V and amend the Constitution, make national laws through plebiscites and do all sorts of things that many today would consider radical. They write with the hopes of restoring the true meaning of the Constitution. But when it comes to their understanding of the supremacy clause they write this:

"Congress offers another potential safeguard [against the potential tyranny of the majority]. As noted, under Article VI of the Constitution, the laws of the United States take precedence over state laws with which they conflict."

No qualifiers, no quoting of the the supremacy clause which states that the laws of the national government are supreme IF they are "made in Pursuance thereof", (which you correctly point out relates to the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8). So even the more radical of law professors and political scientists are clearly comfortable with the status quo misunderstanding--