Would Slavery Reparations be considered Bills of Attainder and hence Illegal?Is it illegal for a President or the Executive Branch to increase Congressional pay/benefits?How do Americans perceive slavery?Is Africa the only continent where chattel slavery still exists?How did slavery become a legal institution in the United States?In the US, is there any crime for which the punishment is slavery?What would make a Democratic Libertarian and a Republican Libertarian different?Are the first ladies considered politicians?Why would Congress want to censure Trump and what would that mean exactly for AmericaIn the news, it says “essential” government employees would be required to work without pay. How?In what ways economy influence slavery and end of it?

Test whether all array elements are factors of a number

Do VLANs within a subnet need to have their own subnet for router on a stick?

Why doesn't H₄O²⁺ exist?

How can bays and straits be determined in a procedurally generated map?

Why, historically, did Gödel think CH was false?

How do I create uniquely male characters?

Why are electrically insulating heatsinks so rare? Is it just cost?

Why was the small council so happy for Tyrion to become the Master of Coin?

Why don't electron-positron collisions release infinite energy?

Risk of getting Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in the United States?

Approximately how much travel time was saved by the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869?

Example of a continuous function that don't have a continuous extension

How could an uplifted falcon's brain work?

Font hinting is lost in Chrome-like browsers (for some languages )

Why are 150k or 200k jobs considered good when there are 300k+ births a month?

Have astronauts in space suits ever taken selfies? If so, how?

What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?

I’m planning on buying a laser printer but concerned about the life cycle of toner in the machine

Why doesn't Newton's third law mean a person bounces back to where they started when they hit the ground?

Can an x86 CPU running in real mode be considered to be basically an 8086 CPU?

Arthur Somervell: 1000 Exercises - Meaning of this notation

Why not use SQL instead of GraphQL?

Why did the Germans forbid the possession of pet pigeons in Rostov-on-Don in 1941?

Fencing style for blades that can attack from a distance



Would Slavery Reparations be considered Bills of Attainder and hence Illegal?


Is it illegal for a President or the Executive Branch to increase Congressional pay/benefits?How do Americans perceive slavery?Is Africa the only continent where chattel slavery still exists?How did slavery become a legal institution in the United States?In the US, is there any crime for which the punishment is slavery?What would make a Democratic Libertarian and a Republican Libertarian different?Are the first ladies considered politicians?Why would Congress want to censure Trump and what would that mean exactly for AmericaIn the news, it says “essential” government employees would be required to work without pay. How?In what ways economy influence slavery and end of it?













15















Recently, a few aspiring 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates (specifically Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren) have spoken out in favor of "reparations" to black people for American Slavery, which was abolished over 150 years ago.



Mirriam Dictionary defines a "Bill of Attainder" as:




a legislative act that imposes punishment without a trial




Bills of Attainder are specifically prohibited by the US Constitution in Article 1, Section 9.



Of course, the idea behind banning Bills of Attainder was to prevent abuse whereby legislatures would target groups of people and pass laws summarily punishing them for perceived actions or transgressions.



Would any Bill establishing "slavery reparations" not have to be considered an illegal Bill of Attainder since they specifically target non-black people and slate them for punishment without a trial?










share|improve this question






















  • As @Joshua pointed out, "corruption of blood" fits better.

    – dan04
    Apr 4 at 0:55






  • 6





    " slate them for punishment without a trial" - Assuming these reparations would be funded through the Federal budget: As a US taxpayer I disagree with the notion that me being taxed and my tax-dollars being put towards reparations is any kind of "punishment". It's just my tax-dollars at work.

    – Dai
    2 days ago







  • 4





    @Dai: You could easily find US taxpayers - me, for instance - who'd disagree with that.

    – jamesqf
    2 days ago






  • 5





    @jamesqf Does money spent on wars punish pacifists? Do tax cuts for oil producers punish environmentalists? I challenge you to find a single person who is completely satisfied with how all federal tax dollars are spent. This argument is ludicrous. It sounds like something out of the sovereign citizen movement.

    – JimmyJames
    2 days ago











  • @jamesqf The taxes anyone of us pays, will necessarily also be used for things we don't need (eg. for schools for someone who's childless), don't want, or things we simply disagree with. Once the taxes are collected, the Government spend it as they see fit - just like you spend your pay-check without your employer weighing in.

    – Baard Kopperud
    2 days ago















15















Recently, a few aspiring 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates (specifically Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren) have spoken out in favor of "reparations" to black people for American Slavery, which was abolished over 150 years ago.



Mirriam Dictionary defines a "Bill of Attainder" as:




a legislative act that imposes punishment without a trial




Bills of Attainder are specifically prohibited by the US Constitution in Article 1, Section 9.



Of course, the idea behind banning Bills of Attainder was to prevent abuse whereby legislatures would target groups of people and pass laws summarily punishing them for perceived actions or transgressions.



Would any Bill establishing "slavery reparations" not have to be considered an illegal Bill of Attainder since they specifically target non-black people and slate them for punishment without a trial?










share|improve this question






















  • As @Joshua pointed out, "corruption of blood" fits better.

    – dan04
    Apr 4 at 0:55






  • 6





    " slate them for punishment without a trial" - Assuming these reparations would be funded through the Federal budget: As a US taxpayer I disagree with the notion that me being taxed and my tax-dollars being put towards reparations is any kind of "punishment". It's just my tax-dollars at work.

    – Dai
    2 days ago







  • 4





    @Dai: You could easily find US taxpayers - me, for instance - who'd disagree with that.

    – jamesqf
    2 days ago






  • 5





    @jamesqf Does money spent on wars punish pacifists? Do tax cuts for oil producers punish environmentalists? I challenge you to find a single person who is completely satisfied with how all federal tax dollars are spent. This argument is ludicrous. It sounds like something out of the sovereign citizen movement.

    – JimmyJames
    2 days ago











  • @jamesqf The taxes anyone of us pays, will necessarily also be used for things we don't need (eg. for schools for someone who's childless), don't want, or things we simply disagree with. Once the taxes are collected, the Government spend it as they see fit - just like you spend your pay-check without your employer weighing in.

    – Baard Kopperud
    2 days ago













15












15








15


4






Recently, a few aspiring 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates (specifically Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren) have spoken out in favor of "reparations" to black people for American Slavery, which was abolished over 150 years ago.



Mirriam Dictionary defines a "Bill of Attainder" as:




a legislative act that imposes punishment without a trial




Bills of Attainder are specifically prohibited by the US Constitution in Article 1, Section 9.



Of course, the idea behind banning Bills of Attainder was to prevent abuse whereby legislatures would target groups of people and pass laws summarily punishing them for perceived actions or transgressions.



Would any Bill establishing "slavery reparations" not have to be considered an illegal Bill of Attainder since they specifically target non-black people and slate them for punishment without a trial?










share|improve this question














Recently, a few aspiring 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates (specifically Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren) have spoken out in favor of "reparations" to black people for American Slavery, which was abolished over 150 years ago.



Mirriam Dictionary defines a "Bill of Attainder" as:




a legislative act that imposes punishment without a trial




Bills of Attainder are specifically prohibited by the US Constitution in Article 1, Section 9.



Of course, the idea behind banning Bills of Attainder was to prevent abuse whereby legislatures would target groups of people and pass laws summarily punishing them for perceived actions or transgressions.



Would any Bill establishing "slavery reparations" not have to be considered an illegal Bill of Attainder since they specifically target non-black people and slate them for punishment without a trial?







president democratic-party slavery democratic-primary reparations






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Apr 3 at 17:11









AgustusAgustus

16618




16618












  • As @Joshua pointed out, "corruption of blood" fits better.

    – dan04
    Apr 4 at 0:55






  • 6





    " slate them for punishment without a trial" - Assuming these reparations would be funded through the Federal budget: As a US taxpayer I disagree with the notion that me being taxed and my tax-dollars being put towards reparations is any kind of "punishment". It's just my tax-dollars at work.

    – Dai
    2 days ago







  • 4





    @Dai: You could easily find US taxpayers - me, for instance - who'd disagree with that.

    – jamesqf
    2 days ago






  • 5





    @jamesqf Does money spent on wars punish pacifists? Do tax cuts for oil producers punish environmentalists? I challenge you to find a single person who is completely satisfied with how all federal tax dollars are spent. This argument is ludicrous. It sounds like something out of the sovereign citizen movement.

    – JimmyJames
    2 days ago











  • @jamesqf The taxes anyone of us pays, will necessarily also be used for things we don't need (eg. for schools for someone who's childless), don't want, or things we simply disagree with. Once the taxes are collected, the Government spend it as they see fit - just like you spend your pay-check without your employer weighing in.

    – Baard Kopperud
    2 days ago

















  • As @Joshua pointed out, "corruption of blood" fits better.

    – dan04
    Apr 4 at 0:55






  • 6





    " slate them for punishment without a trial" - Assuming these reparations would be funded through the Federal budget: As a US taxpayer I disagree with the notion that me being taxed and my tax-dollars being put towards reparations is any kind of "punishment". It's just my tax-dollars at work.

    – Dai
    2 days ago







  • 4





    @Dai: You could easily find US taxpayers - me, for instance - who'd disagree with that.

    – jamesqf
    2 days ago






  • 5





    @jamesqf Does money spent on wars punish pacifists? Do tax cuts for oil producers punish environmentalists? I challenge you to find a single person who is completely satisfied with how all federal tax dollars are spent. This argument is ludicrous. It sounds like something out of the sovereign citizen movement.

    – JimmyJames
    2 days ago











  • @jamesqf The taxes anyone of us pays, will necessarily also be used for things we don't need (eg. for schools for someone who's childless), don't want, or things we simply disagree with. Once the taxes are collected, the Government spend it as they see fit - just like you spend your pay-check without your employer weighing in.

    – Baard Kopperud
    2 days ago
















As @Joshua pointed out, "corruption of blood" fits better.

– dan04
Apr 4 at 0:55





As @Joshua pointed out, "corruption of blood" fits better.

– dan04
Apr 4 at 0:55




6




6





" slate them for punishment without a trial" - Assuming these reparations would be funded through the Federal budget: As a US taxpayer I disagree with the notion that me being taxed and my tax-dollars being put towards reparations is any kind of "punishment". It's just my tax-dollars at work.

– Dai
2 days ago






" slate them for punishment without a trial" - Assuming these reparations would be funded through the Federal budget: As a US taxpayer I disagree with the notion that me being taxed and my tax-dollars being put towards reparations is any kind of "punishment". It's just my tax-dollars at work.

– Dai
2 days ago





4




4





@Dai: You could easily find US taxpayers - me, for instance - who'd disagree with that.

– jamesqf
2 days ago





@Dai: You could easily find US taxpayers - me, for instance - who'd disagree with that.

– jamesqf
2 days ago




5




5





@jamesqf Does money spent on wars punish pacifists? Do tax cuts for oil producers punish environmentalists? I challenge you to find a single person who is completely satisfied with how all federal tax dollars are spent. This argument is ludicrous. It sounds like something out of the sovereign citizen movement.

– JimmyJames
2 days ago





@jamesqf Does money spent on wars punish pacifists? Do tax cuts for oil producers punish environmentalists? I challenge you to find a single person who is completely satisfied with how all federal tax dollars are spent. This argument is ludicrous. It sounds like something out of the sovereign citizen movement.

– JimmyJames
2 days ago













@jamesqf The taxes anyone of us pays, will necessarily also be used for things we don't need (eg. for schools for someone who's childless), don't want, or things we simply disagree with. Once the taxes are collected, the Government spend it as they see fit - just like you spend your pay-check without your employer weighing in.

– Baard Kopperud
2 days ago





@jamesqf The taxes anyone of us pays, will necessarily also be used for things we don't need (eg. for schools for someone who's childless), don't want, or things we simply disagree with. Once the taxes are collected, the Government spend it as they see fit - just like you spend your pay-check without your employer weighing in.

– Baard Kopperud
2 days ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















37














No, on two counts



First, if they were funded by reorganization of current government spending, reparations would legally be no different from any other government program that targets a group.



This was established in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, that a law burdening a group is not unconstitutional.




However expansive is the prohibition against bills of attainder, it was not intended to serve as a variant of the Equal Protection Clause, invalidating every Act by Congress or the States that burdens some persons or groups but not all other plausible individuals.




There's a little bit more about how intent to punish and legitimate purposes also matter.



Further, even were they funded by a specific additional tax, reparations would legally be considered a tax, not a punishment. Note that everyone would likely be taxed, but, as with many existing government programs, the proceeds would not be distributed back to everyone evenly.



Finally, reparations have been implemented by law previously in US history, for instance in the case of the internment of Japanese-Americans. To the best of my knowledge, there was no challenge on constitutional grounds, and if there was, it clearly was not successful.






share|improve this answer




















  • 4





    But (1) the internment camps were built and run by the US federal government, whereas most slaves were privately-owned, and (2) the reparations were authorized "only" 43 years after the war, with many of the actual internees still alive.

    – dan04
    Apr 4 at 1:07






  • 1





    The prohibition against bills of attainder may not be intended to serve as a variant of the Equal Protection Clause... but the Equal Protection Clause is certainly a variant of the Equal Protection Clause. The 'reparations' proposed by Harris and Warren might not run afoul of the ban on bills of attainder, but they would almost certainly run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause itself unless they were actually based on being a descendant of a slave rather than on race.

    – reirab
    Apr 4 at 1:15






  • 1





    The reparations for interned Japanese-Americans is a different matter entirely, as it was paid to people who were actually directly victims of illegal governmental action (i.e. the actual detainees themselves,) not to just anyone with Japanese heritage or who identified racially as Japanese.

    – reirab
    Apr 4 at 1:20






  • 4





    @reirab - I find that highly unlikely. The Equal Protection Clause does not prevent bills that are narrowly scoped to serve a legitimate governmental purpose, even if they explicitly provide benefits to one group or another. That's why you can pass a law that explicitly benefits low income people (Medicaid), or elderly people (Social Security), or elderly people and people with disabilities (Medicare).

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 4 at 1:39







  • 2





    @Obie2.0 Like I said, the constitutional issues with SS are of an entirely different nature, not Equal Protection. 'Reparations,' if explicitly based on race, would most likely be struck down on Equal Protection grounds. Of course, it would also have to sort out who actually qualified for it. Race is quite subjective. Current laws mostly just take your word for it. If a law were passed to distribute 'reparations' to black people, I expect the U.S. would suddenly have a couple hundred million new black people. Of course, the reality is that this is just political pandering.

    – reirab
    Apr 4 at 1:59


















8














It depends how they do it. Some legal (although there may be other challenges for these) ways:



  1. Pass a law saying that descendants of slaves could sue descendants of slave owners. Then hold a trial or trials. Would have to be carefully worded to not be ex post facto banned.

  2. Raise a general tax and make a specific payment. So all races would pay a tax but only descendants of slaves would get money back.

  3. Raise a general tax (possibly progressive) and make a means-tested payment. So all races would pay tax and all races would receive payments. But richer whites would pay more tax and poorer blacks would receive more payments.

The bill of attainder ban only prevents an explicit transfer of money from one group to the government without a trial. It doesn't prevent implicit transfers; otherwise, welfare payments would trigger it.






share|improve this answer


















  • 10





    The defense I would use against such a lawsuit is not ex post facto, but corruption of blood.

    – Joshua
    Apr 3 at 19:49






  • 5





    I don't think the lawsuit idea is a very common proposal. Unlike taxes, it would encounter legal issues, as well as more practical issues. For instance, lawsuits against estates are barred after more than one year. Such a proposal would only make sense if the idea actually were what the querent assumes, to punish the descendents of former slave-holders, which isn't the case. More typical reasoning has to do with compensation or reduction of the racial wealth disparity.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 3 at 20:56







  • 2





    I highly doubt there's much inherited "wealth accumulated through enslaved labor" still around today. Slave owners got no financial compensation their freed slaves, the Confederate Dollar became worthless, and tangible assets were vulnerable to wartime looting or destruction. I guess the plantation land itself would be worth something. Still, how many present-day billionaires do you know of who got their family fortune by owning slaves?

    – dan04
    Apr 4 at 1:19






  • 2





    @dan04 - I don't think your assessment is correct. First, land was worth more than "something." A small farm can have over $100,000 worth of land value. Second, wartime looting existed, but it's a leap to say it would destroy most tangible goods without further evidence. Third, banks did exist back then, and many plantation owners had money in those banks (it wasn't all in Confederate Dollars...even mostly). Finally, many of those same enslaved individuals continued to be exploited via the sharecropping system, using infrastructure built while slavery was legal, further enriching these people.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 4 at 1:58







  • 10





    #1 presents amusing possibilities. There are undoubtedly a good many individuals who are descendants of both slave owners and former slaves: do these people sue themselves? This just points up a practical problem. The Civil War ended over 150 years ago, so figuring 25 years per generation, that's 64 CW-era ancestors per person. How many people even know (or care) who their great-grandparents were? I sure don't. (Even if you do geneology, there are plenty of people whose parentage doesn't exactly match records :-))

    – jamesqf
    2 days ago



















6














  1. Since no reparations proposal requires anyone to be disenfranchised,
    whipped, branded, imprisoned, or executed... it's not clear in what
    sense, (if any), "punishment" might be construed as occurring in
    the event of reparations. If one of the premises of this question is
    the exotic notion that all taxation is "punishment", this should
    be clearly stated in the question. If not, then there's no
    punishment, and the question is moot.

  2. Since there's absolutely no question of the fact of slavery, or so much of its
    unhappy aftermath, a trial for slavery would seem as pointless as
    having a trial to decide whether or not some disastrous tornado or
    hurricane had occurred.

Combining the previous two points, this question is like asking whether federal assistance for victims of California's wildfires violates the prohibition against Bills of Attainder because rendering such assistance would unconstitutionally "punish" the innocent citizens of Hawaii and Louisiana.






share|improve this answer




















  • 2





    While point 1 certainly is true, the argument would be that a disparate tax might effectively constitute a fine, which can be a (mild) form of punishment. I don't think this is correct, because intent is important, as is the presence of a legitimate political purpose, but that would be the argument.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 3 at 21:04












  • @Obie2.0, I had appreciated that implied imputation, but it yet remains unclear as to the logical validity of the overall notion in the mind of the question's author. Fines are for reducing the frequency of certain minor crimes of negligence, but slavery was no careless misdemeanor.

    – agc
    Apr 3 at 21:18







  • 1





    @agc: Slavery was legal. Charging fines for it would violate the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.

    – dan04
    Apr 4 at 1:21











  • @dan04 - Indeed, but no one really is proposing that.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 4 at 1:34











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40207%2fwould-slavery-reparations-be-considered-bills-of-attainder-and-hence-illegal%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









37














No, on two counts



First, if they were funded by reorganization of current government spending, reparations would legally be no different from any other government program that targets a group.



This was established in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, that a law burdening a group is not unconstitutional.




However expansive is the prohibition against bills of attainder, it was not intended to serve as a variant of the Equal Protection Clause, invalidating every Act by Congress or the States that burdens some persons or groups but not all other plausible individuals.




There's a little bit more about how intent to punish and legitimate purposes also matter.



Further, even were they funded by a specific additional tax, reparations would legally be considered a tax, not a punishment. Note that everyone would likely be taxed, but, as with many existing government programs, the proceeds would not be distributed back to everyone evenly.



Finally, reparations have been implemented by law previously in US history, for instance in the case of the internment of Japanese-Americans. To the best of my knowledge, there was no challenge on constitutional grounds, and if there was, it clearly was not successful.






share|improve this answer




















  • 4





    But (1) the internment camps were built and run by the US federal government, whereas most slaves were privately-owned, and (2) the reparations were authorized "only" 43 years after the war, with many of the actual internees still alive.

    – dan04
    Apr 4 at 1:07






  • 1





    The prohibition against bills of attainder may not be intended to serve as a variant of the Equal Protection Clause... but the Equal Protection Clause is certainly a variant of the Equal Protection Clause. The 'reparations' proposed by Harris and Warren might not run afoul of the ban on bills of attainder, but they would almost certainly run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause itself unless they were actually based on being a descendant of a slave rather than on race.

    – reirab
    Apr 4 at 1:15






  • 1





    The reparations for interned Japanese-Americans is a different matter entirely, as it was paid to people who were actually directly victims of illegal governmental action (i.e. the actual detainees themselves,) not to just anyone with Japanese heritage or who identified racially as Japanese.

    – reirab
    Apr 4 at 1:20






  • 4





    @reirab - I find that highly unlikely. The Equal Protection Clause does not prevent bills that are narrowly scoped to serve a legitimate governmental purpose, even if they explicitly provide benefits to one group or another. That's why you can pass a law that explicitly benefits low income people (Medicaid), or elderly people (Social Security), or elderly people and people with disabilities (Medicare).

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 4 at 1:39







  • 2





    @Obie2.0 Like I said, the constitutional issues with SS are of an entirely different nature, not Equal Protection. 'Reparations,' if explicitly based on race, would most likely be struck down on Equal Protection grounds. Of course, it would also have to sort out who actually qualified for it. Race is quite subjective. Current laws mostly just take your word for it. If a law were passed to distribute 'reparations' to black people, I expect the U.S. would suddenly have a couple hundred million new black people. Of course, the reality is that this is just political pandering.

    – reirab
    Apr 4 at 1:59















37














No, on two counts



First, if they were funded by reorganization of current government spending, reparations would legally be no different from any other government program that targets a group.



This was established in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, that a law burdening a group is not unconstitutional.




However expansive is the prohibition against bills of attainder, it was not intended to serve as a variant of the Equal Protection Clause, invalidating every Act by Congress or the States that burdens some persons or groups but not all other plausible individuals.




There's a little bit more about how intent to punish and legitimate purposes also matter.



Further, even were they funded by a specific additional tax, reparations would legally be considered a tax, not a punishment. Note that everyone would likely be taxed, but, as with many existing government programs, the proceeds would not be distributed back to everyone evenly.



Finally, reparations have been implemented by law previously in US history, for instance in the case of the internment of Japanese-Americans. To the best of my knowledge, there was no challenge on constitutional grounds, and if there was, it clearly was not successful.






share|improve this answer




















  • 4





    But (1) the internment camps were built and run by the US federal government, whereas most slaves were privately-owned, and (2) the reparations were authorized "only" 43 years after the war, with many of the actual internees still alive.

    – dan04
    Apr 4 at 1:07






  • 1





    The prohibition against bills of attainder may not be intended to serve as a variant of the Equal Protection Clause... but the Equal Protection Clause is certainly a variant of the Equal Protection Clause. The 'reparations' proposed by Harris and Warren might not run afoul of the ban on bills of attainder, but they would almost certainly run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause itself unless they were actually based on being a descendant of a slave rather than on race.

    – reirab
    Apr 4 at 1:15






  • 1





    The reparations for interned Japanese-Americans is a different matter entirely, as it was paid to people who were actually directly victims of illegal governmental action (i.e. the actual detainees themselves,) not to just anyone with Japanese heritage or who identified racially as Japanese.

    – reirab
    Apr 4 at 1:20






  • 4





    @reirab - I find that highly unlikely. The Equal Protection Clause does not prevent bills that are narrowly scoped to serve a legitimate governmental purpose, even if they explicitly provide benefits to one group or another. That's why you can pass a law that explicitly benefits low income people (Medicaid), or elderly people (Social Security), or elderly people and people with disabilities (Medicare).

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 4 at 1:39







  • 2





    @Obie2.0 Like I said, the constitutional issues with SS are of an entirely different nature, not Equal Protection. 'Reparations,' if explicitly based on race, would most likely be struck down on Equal Protection grounds. Of course, it would also have to sort out who actually qualified for it. Race is quite subjective. Current laws mostly just take your word for it. If a law were passed to distribute 'reparations' to black people, I expect the U.S. would suddenly have a couple hundred million new black people. Of course, the reality is that this is just political pandering.

    – reirab
    Apr 4 at 1:59













37












37








37







No, on two counts



First, if they were funded by reorganization of current government spending, reparations would legally be no different from any other government program that targets a group.



This was established in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, that a law burdening a group is not unconstitutional.




However expansive is the prohibition against bills of attainder, it was not intended to serve as a variant of the Equal Protection Clause, invalidating every Act by Congress or the States that burdens some persons or groups but not all other plausible individuals.




There's a little bit more about how intent to punish and legitimate purposes also matter.



Further, even were they funded by a specific additional tax, reparations would legally be considered a tax, not a punishment. Note that everyone would likely be taxed, but, as with many existing government programs, the proceeds would not be distributed back to everyone evenly.



Finally, reparations have been implemented by law previously in US history, for instance in the case of the internment of Japanese-Americans. To the best of my knowledge, there was no challenge on constitutional grounds, and if there was, it clearly was not successful.






share|improve this answer















No, on two counts



First, if they were funded by reorganization of current government spending, reparations would legally be no different from any other government program that targets a group.



This was established in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, that a law burdening a group is not unconstitutional.




However expansive is the prohibition against bills of attainder, it was not intended to serve as a variant of the Equal Protection Clause, invalidating every Act by Congress or the States that burdens some persons or groups but not all other plausible individuals.




There's a little bit more about how intent to punish and legitimate purposes also matter.



Further, even were they funded by a specific additional tax, reparations would legally be considered a tax, not a punishment. Note that everyone would likely be taxed, but, as with many existing government programs, the proceeds would not be distributed back to everyone evenly.



Finally, reparations have been implemented by law previously in US history, for instance in the case of the internment of Japanese-Americans. To the best of my knowledge, there was no challenge on constitutional grounds, and if there was, it clearly was not successful.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Apr 3 at 18:57

























answered Apr 3 at 18:25









Obie 2.0Obie 2.0

2,340821




2,340821







  • 4





    But (1) the internment camps were built and run by the US federal government, whereas most slaves were privately-owned, and (2) the reparations were authorized "only" 43 years after the war, with many of the actual internees still alive.

    – dan04
    Apr 4 at 1:07






  • 1





    The prohibition against bills of attainder may not be intended to serve as a variant of the Equal Protection Clause... but the Equal Protection Clause is certainly a variant of the Equal Protection Clause. The 'reparations' proposed by Harris and Warren might not run afoul of the ban on bills of attainder, but they would almost certainly run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause itself unless they were actually based on being a descendant of a slave rather than on race.

    – reirab
    Apr 4 at 1:15






  • 1





    The reparations for interned Japanese-Americans is a different matter entirely, as it was paid to people who were actually directly victims of illegal governmental action (i.e. the actual detainees themselves,) not to just anyone with Japanese heritage or who identified racially as Japanese.

    – reirab
    Apr 4 at 1:20






  • 4





    @reirab - I find that highly unlikely. The Equal Protection Clause does not prevent bills that are narrowly scoped to serve a legitimate governmental purpose, even if they explicitly provide benefits to one group or another. That's why you can pass a law that explicitly benefits low income people (Medicaid), or elderly people (Social Security), or elderly people and people with disabilities (Medicare).

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 4 at 1:39







  • 2





    @Obie2.0 Like I said, the constitutional issues with SS are of an entirely different nature, not Equal Protection. 'Reparations,' if explicitly based on race, would most likely be struck down on Equal Protection grounds. Of course, it would also have to sort out who actually qualified for it. Race is quite subjective. Current laws mostly just take your word for it. If a law were passed to distribute 'reparations' to black people, I expect the U.S. would suddenly have a couple hundred million new black people. Of course, the reality is that this is just political pandering.

    – reirab
    Apr 4 at 1:59












  • 4





    But (1) the internment camps were built and run by the US federal government, whereas most slaves were privately-owned, and (2) the reparations were authorized "only" 43 years after the war, with many of the actual internees still alive.

    – dan04
    Apr 4 at 1:07






  • 1





    The prohibition against bills of attainder may not be intended to serve as a variant of the Equal Protection Clause... but the Equal Protection Clause is certainly a variant of the Equal Protection Clause. The 'reparations' proposed by Harris and Warren might not run afoul of the ban on bills of attainder, but they would almost certainly run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause itself unless they were actually based on being a descendant of a slave rather than on race.

    – reirab
    Apr 4 at 1:15






  • 1





    The reparations for interned Japanese-Americans is a different matter entirely, as it was paid to people who were actually directly victims of illegal governmental action (i.e. the actual detainees themselves,) not to just anyone with Japanese heritage or who identified racially as Japanese.

    – reirab
    Apr 4 at 1:20






  • 4





    @reirab - I find that highly unlikely. The Equal Protection Clause does not prevent bills that are narrowly scoped to serve a legitimate governmental purpose, even if they explicitly provide benefits to one group or another. That's why you can pass a law that explicitly benefits low income people (Medicaid), or elderly people (Social Security), or elderly people and people with disabilities (Medicare).

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 4 at 1:39







  • 2





    @Obie2.0 Like I said, the constitutional issues with SS are of an entirely different nature, not Equal Protection. 'Reparations,' if explicitly based on race, would most likely be struck down on Equal Protection grounds. Of course, it would also have to sort out who actually qualified for it. Race is quite subjective. Current laws mostly just take your word for it. If a law were passed to distribute 'reparations' to black people, I expect the U.S. would suddenly have a couple hundred million new black people. Of course, the reality is that this is just political pandering.

    – reirab
    Apr 4 at 1:59







4




4





But (1) the internment camps were built and run by the US federal government, whereas most slaves were privately-owned, and (2) the reparations were authorized "only" 43 years after the war, with many of the actual internees still alive.

– dan04
Apr 4 at 1:07





But (1) the internment camps were built and run by the US federal government, whereas most slaves were privately-owned, and (2) the reparations were authorized "only" 43 years after the war, with many of the actual internees still alive.

– dan04
Apr 4 at 1:07




1




1





The prohibition against bills of attainder may not be intended to serve as a variant of the Equal Protection Clause... but the Equal Protection Clause is certainly a variant of the Equal Protection Clause. The 'reparations' proposed by Harris and Warren might not run afoul of the ban on bills of attainder, but they would almost certainly run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause itself unless they were actually based on being a descendant of a slave rather than on race.

– reirab
Apr 4 at 1:15





The prohibition against bills of attainder may not be intended to serve as a variant of the Equal Protection Clause... but the Equal Protection Clause is certainly a variant of the Equal Protection Clause. The 'reparations' proposed by Harris and Warren might not run afoul of the ban on bills of attainder, but they would almost certainly run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause itself unless they were actually based on being a descendant of a slave rather than on race.

– reirab
Apr 4 at 1:15




1




1





The reparations for interned Japanese-Americans is a different matter entirely, as it was paid to people who were actually directly victims of illegal governmental action (i.e. the actual detainees themselves,) not to just anyone with Japanese heritage or who identified racially as Japanese.

– reirab
Apr 4 at 1:20





The reparations for interned Japanese-Americans is a different matter entirely, as it was paid to people who were actually directly victims of illegal governmental action (i.e. the actual detainees themselves,) not to just anyone with Japanese heritage or who identified racially as Japanese.

– reirab
Apr 4 at 1:20




4




4





@reirab - I find that highly unlikely. The Equal Protection Clause does not prevent bills that are narrowly scoped to serve a legitimate governmental purpose, even if they explicitly provide benefits to one group or another. That's why you can pass a law that explicitly benefits low income people (Medicaid), or elderly people (Social Security), or elderly people and people with disabilities (Medicare).

– Obie 2.0
Apr 4 at 1:39






@reirab - I find that highly unlikely. The Equal Protection Clause does not prevent bills that are narrowly scoped to serve a legitimate governmental purpose, even if they explicitly provide benefits to one group or another. That's why you can pass a law that explicitly benefits low income people (Medicaid), or elderly people (Social Security), or elderly people and people with disabilities (Medicare).

– Obie 2.0
Apr 4 at 1:39





2




2





@Obie2.0 Like I said, the constitutional issues with SS are of an entirely different nature, not Equal Protection. 'Reparations,' if explicitly based on race, would most likely be struck down on Equal Protection grounds. Of course, it would also have to sort out who actually qualified for it. Race is quite subjective. Current laws mostly just take your word for it. If a law were passed to distribute 'reparations' to black people, I expect the U.S. would suddenly have a couple hundred million new black people. Of course, the reality is that this is just political pandering.

– reirab
Apr 4 at 1:59





@Obie2.0 Like I said, the constitutional issues with SS are of an entirely different nature, not Equal Protection. 'Reparations,' if explicitly based on race, would most likely be struck down on Equal Protection grounds. Of course, it would also have to sort out who actually qualified for it. Race is quite subjective. Current laws mostly just take your word for it. If a law were passed to distribute 'reparations' to black people, I expect the U.S. would suddenly have a couple hundred million new black people. Of course, the reality is that this is just political pandering.

– reirab
Apr 4 at 1:59











8














It depends how they do it. Some legal (although there may be other challenges for these) ways:



  1. Pass a law saying that descendants of slaves could sue descendants of slave owners. Then hold a trial or trials. Would have to be carefully worded to not be ex post facto banned.

  2. Raise a general tax and make a specific payment. So all races would pay a tax but only descendants of slaves would get money back.

  3. Raise a general tax (possibly progressive) and make a means-tested payment. So all races would pay tax and all races would receive payments. But richer whites would pay more tax and poorer blacks would receive more payments.

The bill of attainder ban only prevents an explicit transfer of money from one group to the government without a trial. It doesn't prevent implicit transfers; otherwise, welfare payments would trigger it.






share|improve this answer


















  • 10





    The defense I would use against such a lawsuit is not ex post facto, but corruption of blood.

    – Joshua
    Apr 3 at 19:49






  • 5





    I don't think the lawsuit idea is a very common proposal. Unlike taxes, it would encounter legal issues, as well as more practical issues. For instance, lawsuits against estates are barred after more than one year. Such a proposal would only make sense if the idea actually were what the querent assumes, to punish the descendents of former slave-holders, which isn't the case. More typical reasoning has to do with compensation or reduction of the racial wealth disparity.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 3 at 20:56







  • 2





    I highly doubt there's much inherited "wealth accumulated through enslaved labor" still around today. Slave owners got no financial compensation their freed slaves, the Confederate Dollar became worthless, and tangible assets were vulnerable to wartime looting or destruction. I guess the plantation land itself would be worth something. Still, how many present-day billionaires do you know of who got their family fortune by owning slaves?

    – dan04
    Apr 4 at 1:19






  • 2





    @dan04 - I don't think your assessment is correct. First, land was worth more than "something." A small farm can have over $100,000 worth of land value. Second, wartime looting existed, but it's a leap to say it would destroy most tangible goods without further evidence. Third, banks did exist back then, and many plantation owners had money in those banks (it wasn't all in Confederate Dollars...even mostly). Finally, many of those same enslaved individuals continued to be exploited via the sharecropping system, using infrastructure built while slavery was legal, further enriching these people.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 4 at 1:58







  • 10





    #1 presents amusing possibilities. There are undoubtedly a good many individuals who are descendants of both slave owners and former slaves: do these people sue themselves? This just points up a practical problem. The Civil War ended over 150 years ago, so figuring 25 years per generation, that's 64 CW-era ancestors per person. How many people even know (or care) who their great-grandparents were? I sure don't. (Even if you do geneology, there are plenty of people whose parentage doesn't exactly match records :-))

    – jamesqf
    2 days ago
















8














It depends how they do it. Some legal (although there may be other challenges for these) ways:



  1. Pass a law saying that descendants of slaves could sue descendants of slave owners. Then hold a trial or trials. Would have to be carefully worded to not be ex post facto banned.

  2. Raise a general tax and make a specific payment. So all races would pay a tax but only descendants of slaves would get money back.

  3. Raise a general tax (possibly progressive) and make a means-tested payment. So all races would pay tax and all races would receive payments. But richer whites would pay more tax and poorer blacks would receive more payments.

The bill of attainder ban only prevents an explicit transfer of money from one group to the government without a trial. It doesn't prevent implicit transfers; otherwise, welfare payments would trigger it.






share|improve this answer


















  • 10





    The defense I would use against such a lawsuit is not ex post facto, but corruption of blood.

    – Joshua
    Apr 3 at 19:49






  • 5





    I don't think the lawsuit idea is a very common proposal. Unlike taxes, it would encounter legal issues, as well as more practical issues. For instance, lawsuits against estates are barred after more than one year. Such a proposal would only make sense if the idea actually were what the querent assumes, to punish the descendents of former slave-holders, which isn't the case. More typical reasoning has to do with compensation or reduction of the racial wealth disparity.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 3 at 20:56







  • 2





    I highly doubt there's much inherited "wealth accumulated through enslaved labor" still around today. Slave owners got no financial compensation their freed slaves, the Confederate Dollar became worthless, and tangible assets were vulnerable to wartime looting or destruction. I guess the plantation land itself would be worth something. Still, how many present-day billionaires do you know of who got their family fortune by owning slaves?

    – dan04
    Apr 4 at 1:19






  • 2





    @dan04 - I don't think your assessment is correct. First, land was worth more than "something." A small farm can have over $100,000 worth of land value. Second, wartime looting existed, but it's a leap to say it would destroy most tangible goods without further evidence. Third, banks did exist back then, and many plantation owners had money in those banks (it wasn't all in Confederate Dollars...even mostly). Finally, many of those same enslaved individuals continued to be exploited via the sharecropping system, using infrastructure built while slavery was legal, further enriching these people.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 4 at 1:58







  • 10





    #1 presents amusing possibilities. There are undoubtedly a good many individuals who are descendants of both slave owners and former slaves: do these people sue themselves? This just points up a practical problem. The Civil War ended over 150 years ago, so figuring 25 years per generation, that's 64 CW-era ancestors per person. How many people even know (or care) who their great-grandparents were? I sure don't. (Even if you do geneology, there are plenty of people whose parentage doesn't exactly match records :-))

    – jamesqf
    2 days ago














8












8








8







It depends how they do it. Some legal (although there may be other challenges for these) ways:



  1. Pass a law saying that descendants of slaves could sue descendants of slave owners. Then hold a trial or trials. Would have to be carefully worded to not be ex post facto banned.

  2. Raise a general tax and make a specific payment. So all races would pay a tax but only descendants of slaves would get money back.

  3. Raise a general tax (possibly progressive) and make a means-tested payment. So all races would pay tax and all races would receive payments. But richer whites would pay more tax and poorer blacks would receive more payments.

The bill of attainder ban only prevents an explicit transfer of money from one group to the government without a trial. It doesn't prevent implicit transfers; otherwise, welfare payments would trigger it.






share|improve this answer













It depends how they do it. Some legal (although there may be other challenges for these) ways:



  1. Pass a law saying that descendants of slaves could sue descendants of slave owners. Then hold a trial or trials. Would have to be carefully worded to not be ex post facto banned.

  2. Raise a general tax and make a specific payment. So all races would pay a tax but only descendants of slaves would get money back.

  3. Raise a general tax (possibly progressive) and make a means-tested payment. So all races would pay tax and all races would receive payments. But richer whites would pay more tax and poorer blacks would receive more payments.

The bill of attainder ban only prevents an explicit transfer of money from one group to the government without a trial. It doesn't prevent implicit transfers; otherwise, welfare payments would trigger it.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Apr 3 at 18:26









BrythanBrythan

70.2k8147237




70.2k8147237







  • 10





    The defense I would use against such a lawsuit is not ex post facto, but corruption of blood.

    – Joshua
    Apr 3 at 19:49






  • 5





    I don't think the lawsuit idea is a very common proposal. Unlike taxes, it would encounter legal issues, as well as more practical issues. For instance, lawsuits against estates are barred after more than one year. Such a proposal would only make sense if the idea actually were what the querent assumes, to punish the descendents of former slave-holders, which isn't the case. More typical reasoning has to do with compensation or reduction of the racial wealth disparity.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 3 at 20:56







  • 2





    I highly doubt there's much inherited "wealth accumulated through enslaved labor" still around today. Slave owners got no financial compensation their freed slaves, the Confederate Dollar became worthless, and tangible assets were vulnerable to wartime looting or destruction. I guess the plantation land itself would be worth something. Still, how many present-day billionaires do you know of who got their family fortune by owning slaves?

    – dan04
    Apr 4 at 1:19






  • 2





    @dan04 - I don't think your assessment is correct. First, land was worth more than "something." A small farm can have over $100,000 worth of land value. Second, wartime looting existed, but it's a leap to say it would destroy most tangible goods without further evidence. Third, banks did exist back then, and many plantation owners had money in those banks (it wasn't all in Confederate Dollars...even mostly). Finally, many of those same enslaved individuals continued to be exploited via the sharecropping system, using infrastructure built while slavery was legal, further enriching these people.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 4 at 1:58







  • 10





    #1 presents amusing possibilities. There are undoubtedly a good many individuals who are descendants of both slave owners and former slaves: do these people sue themselves? This just points up a practical problem. The Civil War ended over 150 years ago, so figuring 25 years per generation, that's 64 CW-era ancestors per person. How many people even know (or care) who their great-grandparents were? I sure don't. (Even if you do geneology, there are plenty of people whose parentage doesn't exactly match records :-))

    – jamesqf
    2 days ago













  • 10





    The defense I would use against such a lawsuit is not ex post facto, but corruption of blood.

    – Joshua
    Apr 3 at 19:49






  • 5





    I don't think the lawsuit idea is a very common proposal. Unlike taxes, it would encounter legal issues, as well as more practical issues. For instance, lawsuits against estates are barred after more than one year. Such a proposal would only make sense if the idea actually were what the querent assumes, to punish the descendents of former slave-holders, which isn't the case. More typical reasoning has to do with compensation or reduction of the racial wealth disparity.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 3 at 20:56







  • 2





    I highly doubt there's much inherited "wealth accumulated through enslaved labor" still around today. Slave owners got no financial compensation their freed slaves, the Confederate Dollar became worthless, and tangible assets were vulnerable to wartime looting or destruction. I guess the plantation land itself would be worth something. Still, how many present-day billionaires do you know of who got their family fortune by owning slaves?

    – dan04
    Apr 4 at 1:19






  • 2





    @dan04 - I don't think your assessment is correct. First, land was worth more than "something." A small farm can have over $100,000 worth of land value. Second, wartime looting existed, but it's a leap to say it would destroy most tangible goods without further evidence. Third, banks did exist back then, and many plantation owners had money in those banks (it wasn't all in Confederate Dollars...even mostly). Finally, many of those same enslaved individuals continued to be exploited via the sharecropping system, using infrastructure built while slavery was legal, further enriching these people.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 4 at 1:58







  • 10





    #1 presents amusing possibilities. There are undoubtedly a good many individuals who are descendants of both slave owners and former slaves: do these people sue themselves? This just points up a practical problem. The Civil War ended over 150 years ago, so figuring 25 years per generation, that's 64 CW-era ancestors per person. How many people even know (or care) who their great-grandparents were? I sure don't. (Even if you do geneology, there are plenty of people whose parentage doesn't exactly match records :-))

    – jamesqf
    2 days ago








10




10





The defense I would use against such a lawsuit is not ex post facto, but corruption of blood.

– Joshua
Apr 3 at 19:49





The defense I would use against such a lawsuit is not ex post facto, but corruption of blood.

– Joshua
Apr 3 at 19:49




5




5





I don't think the lawsuit idea is a very common proposal. Unlike taxes, it would encounter legal issues, as well as more practical issues. For instance, lawsuits against estates are barred after more than one year. Such a proposal would only make sense if the idea actually were what the querent assumes, to punish the descendents of former slave-holders, which isn't the case. More typical reasoning has to do with compensation or reduction of the racial wealth disparity.

– Obie 2.0
Apr 3 at 20:56






I don't think the lawsuit idea is a very common proposal. Unlike taxes, it would encounter legal issues, as well as more practical issues. For instance, lawsuits against estates are barred after more than one year. Such a proposal would only make sense if the idea actually were what the querent assumes, to punish the descendents of former slave-holders, which isn't the case. More typical reasoning has to do with compensation or reduction of the racial wealth disparity.

– Obie 2.0
Apr 3 at 20:56





2




2





I highly doubt there's much inherited "wealth accumulated through enslaved labor" still around today. Slave owners got no financial compensation their freed slaves, the Confederate Dollar became worthless, and tangible assets were vulnerable to wartime looting or destruction. I guess the plantation land itself would be worth something. Still, how many present-day billionaires do you know of who got their family fortune by owning slaves?

– dan04
Apr 4 at 1:19





I highly doubt there's much inherited "wealth accumulated through enslaved labor" still around today. Slave owners got no financial compensation their freed slaves, the Confederate Dollar became worthless, and tangible assets were vulnerable to wartime looting or destruction. I guess the plantation land itself would be worth something. Still, how many present-day billionaires do you know of who got their family fortune by owning slaves?

– dan04
Apr 4 at 1:19




2




2





@dan04 - I don't think your assessment is correct. First, land was worth more than "something." A small farm can have over $100,000 worth of land value. Second, wartime looting existed, but it's a leap to say it would destroy most tangible goods without further evidence. Third, banks did exist back then, and many plantation owners had money in those banks (it wasn't all in Confederate Dollars...even mostly). Finally, many of those same enslaved individuals continued to be exploited via the sharecropping system, using infrastructure built while slavery was legal, further enriching these people.

– Obie 2.0
Apr 4 at 1:58






@dan04 - I don't think your assessment is correct. First, land was worth more than "something." A small farm can have over $100,000 worth of land value. Second, wartime looting existed, but it's a leap to say it would destroy most tangible goods without further evidence. Third, banks did exist back then, and many plantation owners had money in those banks (it wasn't all in Confederate Dollars...even mostly). Finally, many of those same enslaved individuals continued to be exploited via the sharecropping system, using infrastructure built while slavery was legal, further enriching these people.

– Obie 2.0
Apr 4 at 1:58





10




10





#1 presents amusing possibilities. There are undoubtedly a good many individuals who are descendants of both slave owners and former slaves: do these people sue themselves? This just points up a practical problem. The Civil War ended over 150 years ago, so figuring 25 years per generation, that's 64 CW-era ancestors per person. How many people even know (or care) who their great-grandparents were? I sure don't. (Even if you do geneology, there are plenty of people whose parentage doesn't exactly match records :-))

– jamesqf
2 days ago






#1 presents amusing possibilities. There are undoubtedly a good many individuals who are descendants of both slave owners and former slaves: do these people sue themselves? This just points up a practical problem. The Civil War ended over 150 years ago, so figuring 25 years per generation, that's 64 CW-era ancestors per person. How many people even know (or care) who their great-grandparents were? I sure don't. (Even if you do geneology, there are plenty of people whose parentage doesn't exactly match records :-))

– jamesqf
2 days ago












6














  1. Since no reparations proposal requires anyone to be disenfranchised,
    whipped, branded, imprisoned, or executed... it's not clear in what
    sense, (if any), "punishment" might be construed as occurring in
    the event of reparations. If one of the premises of this question is
    the exotic notion that all taxation is "punishment", this should
    be clearly stated in the question. If not, then there's no
    punishment, and the question is moot.

  2. Since there's absolutely no question of the fact of slavery, or so much of its
    unhappy aftermath, a trial for slavery would seem as pointless as
    having a trial to decide whether or not some disastrous tornado or
    hurricane had occurred.

Combining the previous two points, this question is like asking whether federal assistance for victims of California's wildfires violates the prohibition against Bills of Attainder because rendering such assistance would unconstitutionally "punish" the innocent citizens of Hawaii and Louisiana.






share|improve this answer




















  • 2





    While point 1 certainly is true, the argument would be that a disparate tax might effectively constitute a fine, which can be a (mild) form of punishment. I don't think this is correct, because intent is important, as is the presence of a legitimate political purpose, but that would be the argument.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 3 at 21:04












  • @Obie2.0, I had appreciated that implied imputation, but it yet remains unclear as to the logical validity of the overall notion in the mind of the question's author. Fines are for reducing the frequency of certain minor crimes of negligence, but slavery was no careless misdemeanor.

    – agc
    Apr 3 at 21:18







  • 1





    @agc: Slavery was legal. Charging fines for it would violate the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.

    – dan04
    Apr 4 at 1:21











  • @dan04 - Indeed, but no one really is proposing that.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 4 at 1:34















6














  1. Since no reparations proposal requires anyone to be disenfranchised,
    whipped, branded, imprisoned, or executed... it's not clear in what
    sense, (if any), "punishment" might be construed as occurring in
    the event of reparations. If one of the premises of this question is
    the exotic notion that all taxation is "punishment", this should
    be clearly stated in the question. If not, then there's no
    punishment, and the question is moot.

  2. Since there's absolutely no question of the fact of slavery, or so much of its
    unhappy aftermath, a trial for slavery would seem as pointless as
    having a trial to decide whether or not some disastrous tornado or
    hurricane had occurred.

Combining the previous two points, this question is like asking whether federal assistance for victims of California's wildfires violates the prohibition against Bills of Attainder because rendering such assistance would unconstitutionally "punish" the innocent citizens of Hawaii and Louisiana.






share|improve this answer




















  • 2





    While point 1 certainly is true, the argument would be that a disparate tax might effectively constitute a fine, which can be a (mild) form of punishment. I don't think this is correct, because intent is important, as is the presence of a legitimate political purpose, but that would be the argument.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 3 at 21:04












  • @Obie2.0, I had appreciated that implied imputation, but it yet remains unclear as to the logical validity of the overall notion in the mind of the question's author. Fines are for reducing the frequency of certain minor crimes of negligence, but slavery was no careless misdemeanor.

    – agc
    Apr 3 at 21:18







  • 1





    @agc: Slavery was legal. Charging fines for it would violate the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.

    – dan04
    Apr 4 at 1:21











  • @dan04 - Indeed, but no one really is proposing that.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 4 at 1:34













6












6








6







  1. Since no reparations proposal requires anyone to be disenfranchised,
    whipped, branded, imprisoned, or executed... it's not clear in what
    sense, (if any), "punishment" might be construed as occurring in
    the event of reparations. If one of the premises of this question is
    the exotic notion that all taxation is "punishment", this should
    be clearly stated in the question. If not, then there's no
    punishment, and the question is moot.

  2. Since there's absolutely no question of the fact of slavery, or so much of its
    unhappy aftermath, a trial for slavery would seem as pointless as
    having a trial to decide whether or not some disastrous tornado or
    hurricane had occurred.

Combining the previous two points, this question is like asking whether federal assistance for victims of California's wildfires violates the prohibition against Bills of Attainder because rendering such assistance would unconstitutionally "punish" the innocent citizens of Hawaii and Louisiana.






share|improve this answer















  1. Since no reparations proposal requires anyone to be disenfranchised,
    whipped, branded, imprisoned, or executed... it's not clear in what
    sense, (if any), "punishment" might be construed as occurring in
    the event of reparations. If one of the premises of this question is
    the exotic notion that all taxation is "punishment", this should
    be clearly stated in the question. If not, then there's no
    punishment, and the question is moot.

  2. Since there's absolutely no question of the fact of slavery, or so much of its
    unhappy aftermath, a trial for slavery would seem as pointless as
    having a trial to decide whether or not some disastrous tornado or
    hurricane had occurred.

Combining the previous two points, this question is like asking whether federal assistance for victims of California's wildfires violates the prohibition against Bills of Attainder because rendering such assistance would unconstitutionally "punish" the innocent citizens of Hawaii and Louisiana.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Apr 4 at 3:19

























answered Apr 3 at 20:59









agcagc

5,8661652




5,8661652







  • 2





    While point 1 certainly is true, the argument would be that a disparate tax might effectively constitute a fine, which can be a (mild) form of punishment. I don't think this is correct, because intent is important, as is the presence of a legitimate political purpose, but that would be the argument.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 3 at 21:04












  • @Obie2.0, I had appreciated that implied imputation, but it yet remains unclear as to the logical validity of the overall notion in the mind of the question's author. Fines are for reducing the frequency of certain minor crimes of negligence, but slavery was no careless misdemeanor.

    – agc
    Apr 3 at 21:18







  • 1





    @agc: Slavery was legal. Charging fines for it would violate the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.

    – dan04
    Apr 4 at 1:21











  • @dan04 - Indeed, but no one really is proposing that.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 4 at 1:34












  • 2





    While point 1 certainly is true, the argument would be that a disparate tax might effectively constitute a fine, which can be a (mild) form of punishment. I don't think this is correct, because intent is important, as is the presence of a legitimate political purpose, but that would be the argument.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 3 at 21:04












  • @Obie2.0, I had appreciated that implied imputation, but it yet remains unclear as to the logical validity of the overall notion in the mind of the question's author. Fines are for reducing the frequency of certain minor crimes of negligence, but slavery was no careless misdemeanor.

    – agc
    Apr 3 at 21:18







  • 1





    @agc: Slavery was legal. Charging fines for it would violate the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.

    – dan04
    Apr 4 at 1:21











  • @dan04 - Indeed, but no one really is proposing that.

    – Obie 2.0
    Apr 4 at 1:34







2




2





While point 1 certainly is true, the argument would be that a disparate tax might effectively constitute a fine, which can be a (mild) form of punishment. I don't think this is correct, because intent is important, as is the presence of a legitimate political purpose, but that would be the argument.

– Obie 2.0
Apr 3 at 21:04






While point 1 certainly is true, the argument would be that a disparate tax might effectively constitute a fine, which can be a (mild) form of punishment. I don't think this is correct, because intent is important, as is the presence of a legitimate political purpose, but that would be the argument.

– Obie 2.0
Apr 3 at 21:04














@Obie2.0, I had appreciated that implied imputation, but it yet remains unclear as to the logical validity of the overall notion in the mind of the question's author. Fines are for reducing the frequency of certain minor crimes of negligence, but slavery was no careless misdemeanor.

– agc
Apr 3 at 21:18






@Obie2.0, I had appreciated that implied imputation, but it yet remains unclear as to the logical validity of the overall notion in the mind of the question's author. Fines are for reducing the frequency of certain minor crimes of negligence, but slavery was no careless misdemeanor.

– agc
Apr 3 at 21:18





1




1





@agc: Slavery was legal. Charging fines for it would violate the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.

– dan04
Apr 4 at 1:21





@agc: Slavery was legal. Charging fines for it would violate the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.

– dan04
Apr 4 at 1:21













@dan04 - Indeed, but no one really is proposing that.

– Obie 2.0
Apr 4 at 1:34





@dan04 - Indeed, but no one really is proposing that.

– Obie 2.0
Apr 4 at 1:34

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40207%2fwould-slavery-reparations-be-considered-bills-of-attainder-and-hence-illegal%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Sum ergo cogito? 1 nng

三茅街道4182Guuntc Dn precexpngmageondP