Reparations are Unconstitutional!

Published on April 19, 2006 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

As the debate goes further on reparations for African Americans for years spent in slavery (despite the fact that no African American living has lived under LEGAL slavery in America), it is important to note why the reparations movement should NEVER be successful. Pro and con arguments can be advanced, but the simple fact is, reparations as proposed are unConstitutional.

You see, our Constitution specifically prohibits the introduction of ex pos facto laws. That is, you cannot impose a penalty on someone for a crime that was legal at the time of its commission. And while there is no question in my mind or that of most Americans that slavery was evil and morally reprehensible, it was, technically legal until the ratification of the 13th amendment. And the sons of former slaveowners should not be forced to pay a debt for their ancestors' participation in a legal, though vile, institution.

Now, I have little doubt that there were a few individuals in the Reconstruction South who violated the laws, either through outright slavery or through the practice of paying their workers in scrip rather than legal tender. When and if those persons are shown to exist, their descendants should have some financial culpability for the illegal profits of their ancestors during that time period. And there are certainly several businesses and individuals who stand morally, if not legally, culpable for their actions in oppressing minorities, most notably African Americans, in this country. It would be a good show of faith for them to help right the wrongs of the past, certainly. But to require it, through law, would require an amendment to the Constitution.

And I, for one, hope that doesn't happen anytime soon.

Comments (Page 1)

lifehappens

on Apr 19, 2006

When and if those persons are shown to exist, their descendants should have some financial culpability for the illegal profits of their ancestors during that time period.

Ahem....not in MY book. What the (%*#&@( are you thinking? Let's just think about where that leads. My greatgrandpa bought land from your ancestor at a price way below the worth.....You could claim he was cheated and I would be held responsible. Completely ridiculous you say? Requiring descendents to pay back a debt they did not incur is insane. Now, if it is a living reletive that passes away and you recieve a direct benefit, then you must make good on any debts against that persons name. But we are talking about people who never met the CHILDREN of the people commiting the crime. How far back can you demand reparations?

I would end up paying for this somehow even though I (and my forebearers) had nothing to do with it. Goverment pays out....that's my tax dollar. Individuals pay out.....it will affect thier buisnesses, spending ability etc etc.

The problems of the black community will not be solved with a little cash. ti's too far gone for that. The effects are not going to change the lives dramatically for the better. Reparations are wrong. It's been publicly announced..."we are sorry" "slavery is wrong" etc etc and it is crammed down our throats nonstop that to demean a black person is to be racist and evil. (even though they might just be a jerk in their own right)

Sigh. give it up already. I got nothing from my predecessors except a tendency of obesity and heart problems. I'm not complaining about the involuntary servitude my original immigrant ancestors had to pay. I got a job, saved some money and tried to better myself, by myself. No whining about how someone was mean to my daddy back in the day.

Dr Guy

on Apr 19, 2006

When and if those persons are shown to exist, their descendants should have some financial culpability for the illegal profits of their ancestors during that time period.

Sorry, the sins of the father are not the sins of the son. I totally agree with lifehappens on that account!

And check your article here:

http://gideon-macleish.joeuser.com/articleComments.asp?AID=112513

Moderateman

on Apr 19, 2006

this disgusting practice is being done by race baiters and race haters such as jesse {gimmee money to shut me up} Jackson, AL { i need another cadillac} sharpton to continue to make the blacks think they are somehow less than... and should be paid,I will not give one thin dime to anyone that thinks the burden there great grandfather and grandmother caried somehow entitles them to get paid.

Larry Kuperman

on Apr 19, 2006

Hmmm, Moderateman, how do you feel about Switzerland repaying the assets seized from Jews during WWII? How about Germany paying for the slave labor used to start their auto factories? You think Porsche, Volkswagon and Audi should get away with what they did? These companies delayed justice, should we just say "Okay, you win?"

Ah, more current issues. In the above cases, the suits were brought by survivors or their immediate relatives. But not all the reparations suits are related to slavery in the US. How about the Tulsa Riot of 1921? A whole neighborhood was destroyed, 150 people killed and property stolen. The National Guard helped the looters.

Murders were committed in the US in recent times and the states turned a blind eye. They deserve civil penalties.

Dr Guy

on Apr 19, 2006

2 Different issues.

Switzerland? That was stolen and can be proven.

Germany, and their slave labor? Sorry, that goes back to the reparations. Unfortunately, they are going to be forced to. But under the law at the time, they did nothing wrong.

Judge the rulers, not the ruled. And I know I am going to get a poop full for that. But sorry. Life is a set of rules. Retroactive application of new rules is never in order.

bakerstreet

on Apr 19, 2006

" Hmmm, Moderateman, how do you feel about Switzerland repaying the assets seized from Jews during WWII?

If the Jews in question are alive, or they have undisputed heirs, of course they should to hand it over.

How about Germany paying for the slave labor used to start their auto factories?

If the government enslaved the people, and that government is still in power, then the government has an obligation to make good for the crime in question. If the current government can't be held criminally liable for the historic act, I find it difficult to understand how they could be found civally liable just to make a symbolic gesture.

You think Porsche, Volkswagon and Audi should get away with what they did? These companies delayed justice, should we just say "Okay, you win?"

"Companies" are made up of people. People who aren't party to a crime shouldn't be held responsible for the crime. If you punish the modern Porsche, you aren't punishing an entity, you are taking assetts and income away from people NOW, who had nothing to do with slave labor.

The Nazi government in question ceased to be, and a new one replaced it. If there are executives alive in Germany that are criminally or civilly liable for their acts during WW2, fine, do whatever the law allows to them. To punish a business, though, is to punish everyone that works for it, the vast majority of which probably weren't even alive during WW2.

In terms of the US government, did it own slaves? Did the government put them in chains, did it ship them here? Unless the wrongs were committed by the government, I don't understand how the I am liable, being a single unit of the government in question as a represented, tax-paying citizen.

So, people who never took part in any act of slavery will be giving money to people who were never slaves...

When they demand reparations, they are simply knocking on your door, and asking you to give them money because of what happened 150 years ago. If anyone here feels personally responsible for slavery, feel free to pony up out of your own account. Taking the accumulated money of taxpayers who had no part in slavery, though, is simple theft.

The people who call for reparations for slavery are theives, grifters, leeches who want to continue squeezing a system that showed weakness to them out of misplaced guilt. People who have done something wrong should feel guilty. The rest of us owe them nothing.

bakerstreet

on Apr 19, 2006

P.S. If you want to blame anyone on the Right for this, we should start with Darling Ronnie Reagan who paid money to Japanese who were interned during WW2. People who want reparations for slavery always cite that example.

Again, I don't think what was done to the Japanese was right, even though the leaders in question had their ways of validating it. Perhaps had they taken the reparations by raising taxes on people who were alive and citizens of the US while the internment was going on, it might have made sense. Punitively punishing people who weren't even alive at the time seems crass, and just an evil to cover a separate one.

Myrrander

on Apr 19, 2006

Sorry, the sins of the father are not the sins of the son.

Your Bible claims different.

But, in reference to the article, is there actually any legitimate movement afoot to award reparations to the descendants of slaves? Is it a real issue? The modern 'civil rights' movement has pretty much shot itself in the foot over the past couple of decades, and this idea of reparations is pretty much dead on arrival. The constitutionality of the idea is a moot point, but it serves two purposes: the first purpose being to keep black folks thinking that they are owed something; the second being to give reactionary crackers something to bitch about.

Personally, I'm more concerned about the current state of wage-slavery in this country, which is something that affects humans of all skin tones.

Moderateman

on Apr 19, 2006

Reply By: Larry KupermanPosted: Wednesday, April 19, 2006Hmmm, Moderateman, how do you feel about Switzerland repaying the assets seized from Jews during

apples and oranges larry..

Dr Guy

on Apr 19, 2006

Your Bible claims different.

Sorry, you have me confused with others. Better get your bible thumpers in order, and your religious bigotry better informed.

bakerstreet

on Apr 19, 2006

"But, in reference to the article, is there actually any legitimate movement afoot to award reparations to the descendants of slaves? Is it a real issue? The modern 'civil rights' movement has pretty much shot itself in the foot over the past couple of decades, and this idea of reparations is pretty much dead on arrival. "

I spent a couple of hours watching the "state of the black union" deal they have every year when it was aired on CSPAN. About every notable 'leader' in the movement was there, there were legislators, there were academics, there were the activists, there was even Harry Belafonte, who I found to be pretty impressive, believe it or not.

I heard a lot promoting reparations, and I heard next-to-nothing opposing the idea. The feeling I got was that reparations are due, but it is futile to expect them from the apathetic/fatcats/white devils, etc. (label dependant on the ideas of the folks in question.)

Maybe someone can pull up polls on it, but my take is that it is a widely accepted belief that they are owed, but that America is too corrupt to hand them out. If anyone has proof otherwise, I'll gladly entertain it.

Larry Kuperman

on Apr 19, 2006

Movements afoot, legitimate otherwise:

Link Millions for Reparations site.

Link Farmer-Paellmann suit.

The thing that is often misunderstood about reparations is that they are not primarily PUNITITIVE, they are to REPAIR an injustice.
I feel of two minds about this, however, I do enjoy debating with BakerStreet and the others here.

A corporation is defined as "a legal person that exists quite separately from the natural persons who work with and for it." So, if a corporation steals or benefits from theft, including theft of services, and that corporation continues to exist, it is as if the thief himself was being asked to make repairs for their actions. In many cases, townships and even states are incorporated entities.

Tell me this, if a person is not allowed to keep the fruits of a crime and a government or other incorporated entity is a legal person, then doesn't it follow....?

And BakerStreet, when money is involved, no heir is ever undisputed.

Myrrander

on Apr 19, 2006

But my main question is this: is there a legitimate movement for reparations? Are there bills in congress? Yes, of course black leaders are talking about them, but who are these black leaders? Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? Louis Farrakhan? Those names are the most prominent and also the biggest jokes within the civil rights movement as it is today.

Harry Belafonte? You're scared of the "Banana Boat Song" guy? You think he's going to make some sort of difference on this issue? Didn't we just spend an entire election cycle talking about how celebrities make poor spokesmen for politics? Michael Moore and Tim Robbins didn't make any difference in 2004 and they were talking about current issues -- so is Harry Belafonte, a has-been, going to make any difference talking about an issue that isn't current, won't be current, and has never really been current? The only groups this issue matters to are militant blacks, who have seen their fortunes fade and decline with the rise of people like Tookie Williams, and militant whites, who haven't seen their fortunes increase in the last 50 years at all. The David Duke crowd is bitching about reparations, not any sane conservative. Al Sharpton is bitching about reparations, not any sane liberal.

Who are these leaders, legislators, and activists? Cynthia McKinney? The Rainbow Coalition? Who are the academics? Noam Chomsky? They've all been marginalized, don't you see? This issue has been most effectively marginalized. It doesn't really matter if I'm for reparations or not for them (I'm actually not for them). Reparations had their last bit media hurrah when Dave Chappelle made fun of them on his Comedy Central show about 2 years ago. This isn't a real issue anymore, if it ever was.

As for Dr. Guy's Bible, he might be able to explain Deuteronomy better than me. The book, does, in fact, make a contradiction of itself. In Deuternomomy 5:9, it speaks of disobedience to God being visited on "the third and fourth generation." Later on, in Deuteronomy 24:16, it says that fathers shall not be put to death for the sins of their sons, nor sons for the sins of their fathers. He can, therefore, have it both ways -- those sins deemed worthy can be punished up to the fourth generation, but those not deemed so will not be upon anybody's head but the sinner. If there's a different Bible I should use, then point me to it, friend.

This isn't a real issue. It's an issue that comes about because white people get scared that there are people of another skin tone that might supplant them. With all the worries over immigration today, it's no wonder that some scared crackers are fearful of being held accountable for the crimes of their race.

Of course, if the Libertarians are correct, then any and all people who exist in this country are free to use its goods and service without government regulation. The government that regulates any human is an oppressive, anti-Libertarian government. No reparations, and no breaks for white people, either. That is, of course, if one is a true Libertarian.

Cheers.

bakerstreet

on Apr 19, 2006

"A corporation is defined as "a legal person that exists quite separately from the natural persons who work with and for it.

Troublingly, though, it is also a business owned by stockholders who WILL be punitively effected whether or not the result is intended this way. Feel free to point out how you can punish a "Corporate Entity" without the collateral damage to the people who own and run it. Besides people, what is there?

Let's say you sued a company because your grandfather was, say, accused of stealing, and the result was his career was ruined, and he lived as a low-end workman the rest of his life. You find proof that he didn't actually steal anything. Could anyone here imagine, for half a second, a civil court paying YOU?

What's your argument? That your life isn't nearly what it should be because your father didn't start off with the economic prosperity he should have, and therefore neither did you? That seems to be the crux of the argument for paying people who were never slaves. No one can say whether the grandfather would have invested it poorly, gambled it away, etc. Heck, he might not have even left it to his son.

In addition, it is a "Your grandfather hit my grandfather with a brick, so now I get to hit you with a brick" mentality. That doesn't smooth anything over, it creates new wounds. Jews in Germany sue for huge sums, German stockholders and employees suffer, and low and behold... another reason to be mad at the Jews.

This doesn't help anything. If someone is sitting there with proof their stuff was stolen and is sitting somewhere else, then by all means they deserve it. If someone was abused by another living person, then they should seek restitution for their suffering. You can't soothe the dead by profiting off of their suffering.

bakerstreet

on Apr 19, 2006

I think it is cute how Myrrander has to use the snide "you're a big chicken" thing over and over when he wants to pan people who are justifiably miffed. Sure, reparations are silly, but lets focus on you for being frightened of Harry Belefonte. If I didn't know better I'd call that testosterone... but I do...

Lol... Noam Chomsky? Errr... is there anyone whiter than Noam Comsky? The person I had in mind when I said that was Cornel West.

Cornel Says:

"Only a white man could call Noam Chomsky a 'black academic'!"

(Fear his funky kungfu skills)

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!