---------------------------------------------
Ah, yes the old 'Evolution of the Conservation Movement' section of the Library.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amrvhtml/conshome.htm
Don't you find it strange that the Constitution was supposed to be alterable only by strictly Constitutional methods but some how 'evolved' into a living Constitution?
---------
As to your two sources-
one is suspect simply because of timing. The Amendment was [ahem] ratified in 1868, so I have no doubt you can find all kinds of justification for unconstitutional actions then.
As to your second source:
If you read the page you posted, Wilson is discussing a finding by Rawle. As I can't seem to access the previous page, I'm not sure which decision of Rawle's he is referring to.
But a collective naturalization may also take place, of a class of persons, natives of the country or otherwise, and who, without any act on the part of the individuals, may be made citizens.
Oh, the collective. Odd. The Constitution says nothing about a 'collective' authority. Only the ability to make a 'uniform rule of naturalization' for the States to follow.
-----
The riddle solves itself once one sees what Rawle was quoting from
Lawrence’s Appendix to Wheaton on International Law: Opinion of Attorney General Cuskins [Cushing?], in Opinions of Attorneys General, vol 7.p.74?
Rawle [the author of the THIRD View of the Constitution of the United States] was quoting Lawrence's International Law....Not Vattels.
I have studied historical Constitutional law starting from before the Founding for a solid decade, and I have NEVER heard of 'Lawrence's International Law' before today.
The Founder's never mentioned this Lawrence guy either, but this Vattel dude was apparently quite popular with them, as they had personal copies of Vattel' Law of Nature and Nations before the Revolution.
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.
Benjamin Franklin To Charles-Guillaume-Frédéric Dumas, Philadelphia December 9, 1775.
And official, GOVERMENT copies since 1794:
Ordered, That the Secretary purchase Blackstone's Commentaries, and Vattel's Law of Nature and Nations, for the use of the Senate.
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America / Monday / March 10, 1794 / Volume 2 / page 44
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=002/llsj002.db&recNum=42&itemLink=D?hlaw:13:./temp/~ammem_LF5V::%230020043&linkText=1
----------
Gee, I guess the origins of the mystery of the 'living Constitution' has been solved.
BTW - do you know the difference between the legal terms Natural Law
n. 1) standards of conduct derived from traditional moral principles (first mentioned by Roman jurists in the first century A.D.) and/or God's law and will. The biblical ten commandments, such as "thou shall not kill," are often included in those principles. Natural law assumes that all people believe in the same Judeo-Christian God and thus share an understanding of natural law premises.
2) the body of laws derived from nature and reason, embodied in the Declaration of Independence assertion that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
3) the opposite of "positive law," which is created by mankind through the state.
and positive law?
n. statutory man-made law, as compared to "natural law," which is purportedly based on universally accepted moral principles, "God's law," and/or derived from nature and reason. The term "positive law" was first used by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (1651).
------
Maybe if you did, you'd understand Man can have no legitimate authority to legislate on or define anything contrary to the Laws of Nature.
The law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”
Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted - 23 Feb. 1775
@Senate, 40th Congress, 2nd Session
Insert the page number in the appropriate spot.
It's not set up to be link friendly at all.
It starts at page 961.