Is that not the point?
You have quoted from the "Law of Nations" regarding treaties, but that "Law," especially in 1788, was quite limited in scope, covering a relatively small number of subjects.
Here is an interesting discussion on how the Law of Nations related to the Founders' new Constitution.
So far as I can tell, the Law of Nations says nothing about "compacts", "unions" or the formation of constitutionally limited republican governments.
And therefore it is impossible for the alleged "Law of Nations" to supercede our Founders Original Intent for their new Constitution.
Vattel's Law of Nations [first English Edition] was printed in 1758.
I've showed 3rd party evidence where the Founders were using it in the Senate with the Franklin letter of 1775.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
----
From your link-No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.
Once the dissolution of the Compact was acknowledged by the Ordinances of Secession, the Confederate States WERE a 'foreign country' according to the Law of Nations.
So I ask AGAIN - Where is the Constitutionally REQUIRED Declaration of War?
-----
So far as I can tell, the Law of Nations says nothing about "compacts", "unions" or the formation of constitutionally limited republican governments.
You don't look very hard.
§ 10. Of states forming a federal republic.
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.
Book I Chap. I, Law of Nature and Nations by Vattel
BTW - I've also shown where Tucker said it WAS a treaty.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
-----
And therefore it is impossible for the alleged "Law of Nations" to supercede our Founders Original Intent for their new Constitution.
Why? Because you say so?
Again, your rebuttal consists of nothing more than your opinion.