I. DOES THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION'S ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 2 SUPREMACY CLAUSE PRESCRIBE A RULE OF DECISION UNDER INTERPRETATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT PER STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) MANDATING STATE COURTS TO APPLY, ON DIRECT APPEAL AND COLLATERAL REVIEW, THE TWO-PRONG, REASONABLENESS/PREJUDICE, REASONABLE TEST AND STANDARDS TO IAC CLAIMS, AND ARE PETITIONER'S DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS AND/OR ARTICLE IV PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE VIOLATED BY, RESPONDENTS' MORE RESTRICTIVE THREE-PRONG ARGUABLE, BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE AND OUTCOME-DETERMINATIVE IAC TEST AND STANDARDS, SUCH THAT ALL OTHER SUBSTANTIAL AND SUBSTANTIVE FOURTH, SIXTH, TENTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS UNDER THE RUBRIC OF COUNSELS' INEFFECTIVENESS ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND UNDER STRICKLAND?

Does the federal constitution's supremacy clause mandate state courts to apply the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal and collateral review?