Tweet
AN ETHNIC LOBBY PUSHES STATE LEGISLATURES INTO CHALLENGING DORMANT FOREIGN AFFAIRS DOCTRINE
Journal of Turkish Weekly
Feb 18 2013
JTW
Since the founding of the United States, the division of federal and
state authority under the Constitution has been much debated. The
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which emerged in the New
Jersey Plan on June 15, 1787, along with the Foreign Commerce Clause
formed the so-called dormant foreign affairs doctrine. According
to this doctrine, the U.S. Constitution, federal laws and treaties
supersede state laws to be "the supreme Law of the Land". State
laws must yield to the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the
Constitution, or some treaty made under the authority of the United
States (see Douglas v. Seacoast Products , 431 U.S. 265, 277 -279
[1977]). Consequently, the Supreme Court considers any state law
that contradicts a federal action that could be executed in a form
of treaty, federal statute, or express executive branch policy,
to be unconstitutional.
State involvement in U.S. foreign policy was barely significant
until 1980s, when to voice opinion against the apartheid regime,
over half of the states adopted sanctions against South Africa. In
the late 1990s, several state legislatures and localities targeted
the military regime in Burma, and in 2000s - the regime in Sudan for
genocidal crimes in Darfur. But most of these state laws have been
targeted by litigation. For example, in Crosby v. National Foreign
Trade Council case, the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts
law that imposed sanctions against companies doing business in Burma.
Over the past couple of decades, the Armenian-American lobby has been
actively targeting the nations of Turkey and Azerbaijan, the arch-foes
of Armenia. In case of Turkey, Armenian-American special interests
seek state-level acknowledgement of the claims of Armenian genocide
in the Ottoman Empire; in case of Azerbaijan - push for recognition
of the so-called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR), an unrecognized
client regime established in the parts of Azerbaijan occupied by
Armenian military.
On May 17, 2012, the State of Rhode Island House of Representatives
adopted Resolution H8180 calling on President and Congress to
recognize NKR. In November 2012, California Assemblyman Katcho
Achadjian and State Senator Kevin De Leon, hosted the self-proclaimed
foreign minister of NKR at the State Capitol in Sacramento. During the
reception, Senator De Leon asserted that California legislature should
recognize the NKR independence. Yet according to the U.S. Department
of State, the United States does not recognize NKR and considers
the comprising territory to be a part of Azerbaijan. Furthermore,
the U.S., along with France and Russia, is a co-chair of the OSCE
Minsk Group, an international body mediating a solution for the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. The ethnic-lobby-driven resolutions
in Rhode Island and California represent a certain impediment to this
mediating role of the federal government.
On the first day of the California Assembly in December 2012,
California Assemblymen Katcho Achadjian and Mike Gatto introduced
Assembly Joint Resolution 2 calling to recognize World War I-era
inter-ethnic atrocities in the Ottoman Empire as genocide against
Armenians. Armenian-American interest groups in California and other
states have repeatedly lobbied for similar resolutions. But without an
appropriate decision of the International Court of Justice (see Case
T-346/03 ), such state resolutions contradict the Constitution, as
neither the U.S. Government nor Congress recognize Armenian genocide.
The Armenian-American lobby's influence on state legislatures yields
a pioneering new tendency. While previously state legislatures
interfered in foreign affairs only to express a position on issues
of human rights violations or commerce, they never did so to satisfy
an antagonism of a U.S.-based ethnic voting block against a foreign
nation. In this sense, Armenian-American example may be a disturbing
precedent for other ethnic lobbies that want to use state government
to settle foreign scores by circumventing federal jurisdiction.
By Rafiga Gurbanzade 18 February 2013 Journal of Turkish Weekly
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/147280/an-ethnic-lobby-pushes-state-legislatures-into-challenging-dormant-foreign-affairs-doctrine.html
From: Baghdasarian
Journal of Turkish Weekly
Feb 18 2013
JTW
Since the founding of the United States, the division of federal and
state authority under the Constitution has been much debated. The
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which emerged in the New
Jersey Plan on June 15, 1787, along with the Foreign Commerce Clause
formed the so-called dormant foreign affairs doctrine. According
to this doctrine, the U.S. Constitution, federal laws and treaties
supersede state laws to be "the supreme Law of the Land". State
laws must yield to the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the
Constitution, or some treaty made under the authority of the United
States (see Douglas v. Seacoast Products , 431 U.S. 265, 277 -279
[1977]). Consequently, the Supreme Court considers any state law
that contradicts a federal action that could be executed in a form
of treaty, federal statute, or express executive branch policy,
to be unconstitutional.
State involvement in U.S. foreign policy was barely significant
until 1980s, when to voice opinion against the apartheid regime,
over half of the states adopted sanctions against South Africa. In
the late 1990s, several state legislatures and localities targeted
the military regime in Burma, and in 2000s - the regime in Sudan for
genocidal crimes in Darfur. But most of these state laws have been
targeted by litigation. For example, in Crosby v. National Foreign
Trade Council case, the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts
law that imposed sanctions against companies doing business in Burma.
Over the past couple of decades, the Armenian-American lobby has been
actively targeting the nations of Turkey and Azerbaijan, the arch-foes
of Armenia. In case of Turkey, Armenian-American special interests
seek state-level acknowledgement of the claims of Armenian genocide
in the Ottoman Empire; in case of Azerbaijan - push for recognition
of the so-called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR), an unrecognized
client regime established in the parts of Azerbaijan occupied by
Armenian military.
On May 17, 2012, the State of Rhode Island House of Representatives
adopted Resolution H8180 calling on President and Congress to
recognize NKR. In November 2012, California Assemblyman Katcho
Achadjian and State Senator Kevin De Leon, hosted the self-proclaimed
foreign minister of NKR at the State Capitol in Sacramento. During the
reception, Senator De Leon asserted that California legislature should
recognize the NKR independence. Yet according to the U.S. Department
of State, the United States does not recognize NKR and considers
the comprising territory to be a part of Azerbaijan. Furthermore,
the U.S., along with France and Russia, is a co-chair of the OSCE
Minsk Group, an international body mediating a solution for the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. The ethnic-lobby-driven resolutions
in Rhode Island and California represent a certain impediment to this
mediating role of the federal government.
On the first day of the California Assembly in December 2012,
California Assemblymen Katcho Achadjian and Mike Gatto introduced
Assembly Joint Resolution 2 calling to recognize World War I-era
inter-ethnic atrocities in the Ottoman Empire as genocide against
Armenians. Armenian-American interest groups in California and other
states have repeatedly lobbied for similar resolutions. But without an
appropriate decision of the International Court of Justice (see Case
T-346/03 ), such state resolutions contradict the Constitution, as
neither the U.S. Government nor Congress recognize Armenian genocide.
The Armenian-American lobby's influence on state legislatures yields
a pioneering new tendency. While previously state legislatures
interfered in foreign affairs only to express a position on issues
of human rights violations or commerce, they never did so to satisfy
an antagonism of a U.S.-based ethnic voting block against a foreign
nation. In this sense, Armenian-American example may be a disturbing
precedent for other ethnic lobbies that want to use state government
to settle foreign scores by circumventing federal jurisdiction.
By Rafiga Gurbanzade 18 February 2013 Journal of Turkish Weekly
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/147280/an-ethnic-lobby-pushes-state-legislatures-into-challenging-dormant-foreign-affairs-doctrine.html
From: Baghdasarian