“This article is, indeed, nothing more than an express recognition of the law of nations...”
Law of Nations = International Law. In your case, referencing what happens if “sovereign, and independent states” - state being another word for country - decide to join together in a “perpetual confederacy”.
I wish the states of the US were sufficiently sovereign so that “the deliberations in common will offer no violence to the sovereignty of each member”! Unhappily, the Civil War and the 14th Amendment destroyed that concept.
Still, your quote was using Vattel as an authority on International Law, which he was. He was NOT an expert on American law (which didn’t exist in 1757), nor was he very knowledgeable on English law.
The 10th Amendment is not 'international law'.
-----
He was NOT an expert on American law (which didn’t exist in 1757),
I never asserted Vattel was 'an expert on American law'.
-------
nor was he very knowledgeable on English law.
I never made the claim that he was.
--------
Your assertion that Vattel's concepts had no valid internal operation is false. Tucker WAS an expert on American and English law and HE stated the 10th Amendment was a DIRECT ASSERTION of Vattel.
Trying to infer I made claims that I never did is merely an attempt to deflect from the documented FACT Vattel was used in American internal law.