Tweet
OBAMA'S REDEMPTION?
BY GAREN YEGPARIAN
Tuesday, November 13th, 2012 | Posted by Garen Yegparian
http://asbarez.com/106548/obamas-redemption/
Everyone knows the current administration hasn't been significantly
better or worse, substantively, than previous presidential
administrations when it comes to things Armenian. What has made
the Obama administration particularly objectionable is the explicit
Genocide related promise he made as a candidate, raising hopes to a
very high level. But with Obama's first foreign visit being to Turkey,
the Armenia-Turkey protocols, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's
despicable comments about the Genocide, the usual bias of the executive
branch of the U.S. government has been shown in stark relief.
But now a German insurance company and the Turkish government,
basically working together, have provided the Obama administration
an opportunity to, at least partially, redeem itself.
Some background and reminders are necessary before going on. Less than
two weeks ago, we learned that the U.S. Supreme Court has invited
the Solicitor General to file a brief detailing the U.S. government
position on the Ninth Circuit Court decision earlier this year
which struck down a California law that allowed Armenian Americans to
pursue Genocide-era life insurance claims. You may recall that this is
the case where a German insurance company (referred to as Victoria,
initially, but now as Munich Re) has fought against paying the heirs
of those who bought life insurance policies from it. This matter was
heard three times by the 9th Circuit court, which ultimately decided
that the California law was unconstitutional, based on a wrongheaded
interpretation that the federal government's rights preempt the ability
of the states to pass laws such as the California one in question.
Now, the Supreme Court, which received some 2000 petitions to hear
appeals, has decided to hear half a dozen of those, and has asked
the Solicitor General for input on another half dozen. The California
Munich Re case falls into that second group. So whether the Solicitor
General does file a brief regarding this matter, and what that brief
says, will have a large impact on the Supreme Court's ultimate choice
to hear the appeal or not, and what its final ruling will be.
What we want is for the Solicitor General to say "no, we have no
policy regarding this matter" which means there can no question of
"preemption". This would then likely lead the Supreme Court to find
that because there is no issue of preemption, the California law
is constitutional, and will remain in force. If the Supreme Court
finds otherwise, not only would the California life insurance law
be invalidated, but the Turkish government would start twisting the
meaning of the ruling. The Turks would argue that the proclamations
and resolutions about the Genocide we have obtained from state and
local legislatures and officials would become null and void, and future
ones would be precluded. They would also use the same argument to try
to eliminate state curriculum requirements that call for teaching of
the Armenian Genocide.
From: Baghdasarian
BY GAREN YEGPARIAN
Tuesday, November 13th, 2012 | Posted by Garen Yegparian
http://asbarez.com/106548/obamas-redemption/
Everyone knows the current administration hasn't been significantly
better or worse, substantively, than previous presidential
administrations when it comes to things Armenian. What has made
the Obama administration particularly objectionable is the explicit
Genocide related promise he made as a candidate, raising hopes to a
very high level. But with Obama's first foreign visit being to Turkey,
the Armenia-Turkey protocols, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's
despicable comments about the Genocide, the usual bias of the executive
branch of the U.S. government has been shown in stark relief.
But now a German insurance company and the Turkish government,
basically working together, have provided the Obama administration
an opportunity to, at least partially, redeem itself.
Some background and reminders are necessary before going on. Less than
two weeks ago, we learned that the U.S. Supreme Court has invited
the Solicitor General to file a brief detailing the U.S. government
position on the Ninth Circuit Court decision earlier this year
which struck down a California law that allowed Armenian Americans to
pursue Genocide-era life insurance claims. You may recall that this is
the case where a German insurance company (referred to as Victoria,
initially, but now as Munich Re) has fought against paying the heirs
of those who bought life insurance policies from it. This matter was
heard three times by the 9th Circuit court, which ultimately decided
that the California law was unconstitutional, based on a wrongheaded
interpretation that the federal government's rights preempt the ability
of the states to pass laws such as the California one in question.
Now, the Supreme Court, which received some 2000 petitions to hear
appeals, has decided to hear half a dozen of those, and has asked
the Solicitor General for input on another half dozen. The California
Munich Re case falls into that second group. So whether the Solicitor
General does file a brief regarding this matter, and what that brief
says, will have a large impact on the Supreme Court's ultimate choice
to hear the appeal or not, and what its final ruling will be.
What we want is for the Solicitor General to say "no, we have no
policy regarding this matter" which means there can no question of
"preemption". This would then likely lead the Supreme Court to find
that because there is no issue of preemption, the California law
is constitutional, and will remain in force. If the Supreme Court
finds otherwise, not only would the California life insurance law
be invalidated, but the Turkish government would start twisting the
meaning of the ruling. The Turks would argue that the proclamations
and resolutions about the Genocide we have obtained from state and
local legislatures and officials would become null and void, and future
ones would be precluded. They would also use the same argument to try
to eliminate state curriculum requirements that call for teaching of
the Armenian Genocide.
From: Baghdasarian