MLAT TREATY WITH CANADA/Ratification
"...nothing in the treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States that is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution... "
Actually, you will find language like that in most MLAT's between major nations. That's because neither nation can strong arm the other. The real problems are the MLAT's that the US has intimidated or bribed many smaller nations into signing. By offering a small tax haven nation half of everything that they turn over to US authorities and threatening sanctions against them if they don't, the US authorities often force/entice the smaller nations to sign very one-sided MLAT's.
Remember that there are currently over 50 MLAT's in force between the US and other countries. Only a handful of those are with other large nations, that can stand up to the bullying tactics, that the US has become known for in recent years.
Only a small percentage of Americans try to legally shelter their assets in Canada. That's because it's much easier to recognize legal tax savings in a dozen or so Caribbean nations. Those are the ones that I would worry about. The fact is, that every MLAT is different. Some are not bad at all. But, most have one or more serious flaws and even those have different flaws. It isn't the 10 or so fairly reasonable MLAT's that are the problem. It's the 40 or so one-sided MLAT's between the US and the small nations most favored for legal tax shelters and privacy that should be of major concern.
I must agree with taxcontrol on the idea of an amendment that would specifically limit what treaties can be signed and what provisions of existing treaties might be ruled invalid, based upon the Constitution.
I am not well versed enough to comment on the MLAT treaties and thank you for your information. However, I do know that under the current Constitution, treaties are afforded "law of the land" standing. Meaning, in essence, that they have simular weight as amendments to the constitution but don't actually modify the constitution.
I had an internation law professor explain it to me once. It was all rather confusing but the thing I learned was that treaties have equal weight as amendments. In my mind that is wrong.
It also represents a threat to the rights recognized under the bill of rights as it would be possible in theory to sign a treaty that prohibits the sale of small arms ammunition. This would directly infringe on the 2nd and could then be used by the liberal groups to force their agenda. In fact, just about any treaty could be structured to do so.
So, my point is to preempt such action by proposing a change to the constitution while control of the Congress is in conservative hands.
I also think that this has the chance of being a "sleeper" issue with the voters. It will give a chance to show that Republicans are pro-Constitution, and if the Dems oppose, show that they are anti-Constitution. The effect will be to motivate the conservative base to get out the vote. Very useful to winning an election.
If given enough attention, might even take the Dem talking points off the table and out of the election.
I can hope cant I?