I don't think so. If the government action violates a provision of the Constitution then you can file your civil rights suit. Also I don't think that the government has to approve of a suit filed against it under the Federal Tort Claims Act. I've never been involved with such a suit so I may be mistaken, but that is my understanding.
I had no intention to give such a false impression. I meant the same suit, same parties, same arguments. I obviously did not express my point eloquently. Sorry for the confusion.
I think advocating the payment of reparations will do significantly more harm to the cause of race relations in our country than the benefit of reparations could ever hope to achieve. Personally, I would be extremely upset if my tax dollars were used for reparations. Who on this BBS really believes that focusing on this issue is going to help more than it hurts? I think creating equal educational opportunities for all children and somehow attempting to restore the integrity of the African-American family (don't ask me how, but not so many single moms) are the two most important things we could do as a society to ameliorate the effects of slavery and the continued discrimination that exists in our country.
Very well said. Your plan has my vote. Between you and AstroRocket, maybe we can actually make some progress in regards to race relations.
He did say the 'same' suit so I think that's where the confusion started, not with your post. I understood what he meant but I have these same arguments with my wife (also a lawyer) when she concentrates on the literal. Guess that's a big part of the profession. I tend to start my own version of the 'dozens' with my replies anyway though, so don't take my jibes too personally ...
I really appreciate you posting that. A couple of months ago my company closed to Houston office and I was laid off. The job market is tough and I haven't caught on at a firm yet. I guess that makes me very sensitive to dispersions regarding my legal ability. You know how hard it is for a young lawyer who had a decent GPA but not top 10% to catch a break. In any event, your arguments are in depth and to give a good legal answer would take way too much research and space for a BBS forum. You are a worthy adversary. The force is strong with this one...
As a financial guy I wonder what the answer to this equation would be: C - (A+B) = ? In that A: Slave Reparation Damages B: Amount the individuals have paid into the tax system C: Amount the individuals asking for Reparations have recieved in terms of welfare, social security, government land grants (1800's), medicare and medicaid, costs of schooling and other benefits they have recieved as a US citizen (-) benefits they would have recieved in Africa ( hahah "0" to a loss ) If they wish to start talking numbers, than those are relavent numbers to look at. Taxable amount paid versus Government tax dollars used based on average tax paid in the nation. I think the US would actually make money!! Tax Rebate for everyone except the "Reparationists"
The general concensus is: 1. It is ok to f*ck someone up and do damage to their family as long as you A. don't acknowledge the wrong til they die. . . or B. kill them. Like I said. . . all i need to do is FORCE bill gates to give me his money . .. kill him and his wife and his kids . . . .then kill myself. . . the money is my familie's free and clear becuase they didn't do anything .. they didn't hurt anyone also no one directly affected by it are alive. . .so it is all good. Rocket River
So I guess you believe that we should be able to sue Eve for giving Adam the apple. Then you can just choose who pays the judgment arbitrarily regardless of whether their family had anything to do with the wrong. That's what we're really dealing with here, since at this point the wrongful acts are fairly far removed temporally. When suggesting legal regimes or reforms you have to think about the most extreme circumstances that your change could muster up.
Exactly Rocket River. If you weren't so blind with your own hand stuck out, you would realize there is another group of minorities that was F--ed hard with no sympathy. Not even now. Go ahead and hope a precenent is set, becuase every Indian tribe in this country should follow suit with damages one million times larger. SO don't spend your check to soon.
I don't agree with Rocket River, but wasn't that a little harsh? I never heard Rocket River say that HE is owed money. Maybe he is...I don't know.
This is a lose/lose situation. Nobody will be happy with the outcome. Nice post AstroRocket. How do the arguments on the BBS always turn into personal attacks?
Like I said. . . all i need to do is FORCE bill gates to give me his money . .. kill him and his wife and his kids . . . .then kill myself. . . the money is my familie's free and clear The difference, of course, is that you obtained the money illegally and therefore couldn't legally give it to your family. Slavery was <I>legal</I> at the time it occurred. When slavery was banned, it was not done so retroactively. To make your example relevent, if murder & theft were legal when you did this, and then they were subsequently made illegal, you would be in the clear.
Let's say that, somehow, murder & theft were legal. The course of action described above would be okay then? To say that murder & theft could possibly be "legal" sounds disturbing, but not much more disturbing than saying "slavery was legal" and using it as a point of argument. Just a thought. Feel free to rip/dissect/discredit/haze/ridicule/dismiss as you deem appropriate. BTW, personally I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on this issue, but I must say that the debate on here makes for very interesting reading. But let's not lose sight of the more important issues, like, GO ROCKETS!!
Let's say that, somehow, murder & theft were legal. The course of action described above would be okay then? To say that murder & theft could possibly be "legal" sounds disturbing, but not much more disturbing than saying "slavery was legal" and using it as a point of argument. If theft & murder were legal, yeah, I don't see what would be <I>legally</I> wrong with going out and killing someone. You couldn't then turn around and make murder illegal and blame the guy who did it. Its difficult to conceptualize because murder simply isn't legal. So let's look at another example -- if abortion is made illegal 10 years from now, should we be able to turn around and criticize women who got abortions this year? Morality is something that constantly changes - you can't go back and try to "fix" history from 100 or 200 years ago based on today's standards. You'll get yourself into a mess that just can't be resolved. At some point, you just have to say that our distant ancestors f***ed up and we're going to try to do better now instead of punishing their descendents for it.
According to this National Center for Policy Analysis article, only 4% of all slaves taken from Africa between 1500 and 1870 went to the US. That totals around 399,000 slaves. Not 10 million, which was the TOTAL taken. Here is more info. For African leaders, slavery was a huge moneymaker. According to Thomas, they were paid about 50 pounds for each slave in the 18th century. This was a large sum in those days. A person could live for 4 years on it. Of course, prices varied over the years, and slaves were often bought in trade for horses and other goods. Given that about 10 million Africans were sold to European slavers over the years, even a low estimate of the wealth obtained by African leaders would be about 300 million pounds. It is very difficult to put this number into context, but at a 5 percent interest rate, compounded over 150 years, it would equal almost $1 trillion today.
I read a historical survey in a college class based on exaggerated Native American death tolls reported by the US army. It is astounding how inflated reports are about how many Native Americans were directly killed by whites. Many, many more Native Americans were killed through tribal warfare, disease, etc. than through warfare with whites. I managed to dig up the syllabus, but I can't find a copy of the article. It was by Don Russell, and the name of it was "How many Indians were Killed?".... if anyone feels like finding it.
Great post, Doctor Robert. It's alway a nice silencer to throw facts and knowledge into an argument filled with one sided, extreme opinions. My take on this situation is that race relations must be pretty darn good these days if this is what the United Black Front (or whatever their name is) must resort to whining and crying about. They're really groping for something to instigate a fight with, but coming up empty. Thankfully people aren't even paying attention this time, not even a minority-influenced city council.
Compared to what people were saying early in the thread, the problem in the US is smaller by a factor of 25. That is a huge difference. That doesn't make you feel better? It also says that if reparations are ever paid, that US companies, individuals, and government entities should be attributed only a percentage of the responsibility. In a courtroom, percentages would be used to determine reward amounts. Especially in a case that is as fuzzy and impossible to quantify as this one. A question for the lawyers.... can reparations include punitive damages?
