Posted on 08/17/2004 5:58:48 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
One day after their first meeting, U.S. Senate hopefuls Barack Obama and Alan Keyes were back on the campaign trail again Monday.
Speaking at a news conference at the Hotel InterContinental in Chicago, Republican Keyes added to his now familiar talking points his stance on slavery reparations.
Prompted by a reporter's question, Keyes gave a brief tutorial on Roman history and said that in regard to reparations for slavery, the U.S. should do what the Romans did: "When a city had been devastated [in the Roman empire], for a certain length of time--a generation or two--they exempted the damaged city from taxation."
Keyes proposed that for a generation or two, African-Americans of slave heritage should be exempted from federal taxes--federal because slavery "was an egregious failure on the part of the federal establishment." In calling for the tax relief, Keyes appeared to be reaching out to capture the black vote, something that may prove difficult to do, particularly after his unwelcome reception at the Bud Billiken Day Parade Saturday...
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
You clearly don't understand how the USC works.
The USC defines the structure of the government and places limits on its authority. It also enumerates authority specifically in some case.
Outside of that,
It is well established law that the US Government can enact policies not specifically enumerated in the USC, so long as they are not specifically forbidden by a
The USC does not authorize, nor forbid, the formation of a National Bank. Yet one exists and came into existence shortly after the USC was ratified. That isn't 'unconstitutional' in any way, and to draw that conclusion demonstrates that you don't know how the USC works.
What you are saying makes no sense - we don't need the USC to explicitly tell us we 'can' take an elective course of action if we choose so, so long as it isn't specifically forbidden, or tailored in a way that is unconstitutional.
There are 1,000s of examples of elective courses of action our nation can take that are not specifically mentioned in the USC. That's not to say, by definition, they are 'unconstitutional.'
They may be 'extra constitutional,' but 200 years of court decisions make it clear that 'extra constitutional' courses of action are fine, legally, so long as they are not 'unconstitutional.'
It is Uniform, Cardozo.
No membership of a particular state would call for a different 'deal.' It is uniform throught the USA, specific to the membership to the class.
You are misreading the line.
Does Jesse ever say anything serious? I've been on this thread longer than I wanted to be considering today is my day off. After reading most of the comments on this thread, I'm more convinced than ever that reparations are wrong. Any black person who grew up with old black folks talking about the 'ole days' need to give up any hope of any 'reparations' because as they can see, any talk of black people bring lots of ill will esp. from white people. Stop reading books about the travails of the black man and listening to old people with a grudge because while one is doing so, immigrants come over and benefit from the fruit of what black American ancestors died for in some cases.
Time for me to go look for some work, so they don't start talking about reparations for poor children of guidos.
So are you telling me that I, a moderatly successful middle class homeowner, am somehow suddenly less off because I can trace my ancestry to slavery? I don't think so.
I don't need, nor want anybody's blood money. Not only that, we, as a nation, have no business creating a further divide between blacks and the remainder of the population, especially to placate and satisfy some misbegotten and misplaced notion of guilt, thanks to the leftists in this nation.
Keyes has played right into their hand, and created a mountain where none existed previously.
I've written in the past on the notion, as have other columnists from Walter Williams to Michelle Malkin. And we're all in agreement: the notion is folly, and doomed to fail.
I know my history. This isn't an attempt to make reparations for all slavery (outside of the USA's jurisdiction, for example).
It is a specifically tailored elective course of action to remedy a specific wrong against a discrete class in our jurisdiction.
Black who owned slaves have nothing to do with it - this isn't a policy to punish anyone in particular. It is to make reparations for a victimized cultural class.
Well, I understand your Sixteenth Amendment argument and I'm certainly not prepared to say that it couldn't fly. In fact, a court might even find some Congressional authority for this kind of a statute in Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment and/or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, but I think it has to be assumed that any statute that on its face discriminates between races has some significant Constitutional hurdles and I wouldn't bet on a unanimous decision in either direction.
Just about anything could happen with this kind of a statute.
Keyes seems to be 'splainin' more here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1193336/posts
Jim Robinson's providing summaries! :-)
This is why I prefer Walter Williams... he's less of a loose cannon and more a voice of reason.... but frankly, I too am having a hard time believing this story.. it doesn't sound like the Alan Keyes I've come to know and admire.
Oh, I understand how it works - it places limits on what the authority of the federal government is - anything not in there, they are not supposed to do. That doesn't mean they don't, because they love to use the "Interstate Commerce" Clause to excuse everything they do... and people lik eyou eat it up and agree wholeheartedly with it and encourage it.
Which is why our nation is in the f****d up state it's in.
And this latest proposal you are supporting is just another in a long line of examples.
I stand by my conviction that treating some classes of citizens differently than other classes of citizens is unconstitutional.
Even a new supreme court ruling on it in it's favor would not convince me, because they would probably use some kind of "international law" as a reason for their decision.
You misunderstand the distinction.
This is not a plan to make reparations to african americans or black people. The trait at issue is whether or not an ancestor was a slave in the jurisdiction.
Race is only peripheral to this matter. That's why the reparations wouldn't be available to all blacks, since all blacks don't trace their ancestors to slaves in the USA.
The tax code DOES make disctinctions upon different tax rates for different people, and different entities (corporate tax rates and rules, for example). The tax code DOES make distinctions and extends benefits for different kinds of conduct.
It also make distinctions for age, for example, which is a form of discrimiation but the elective choices made would never survive an equal protection challenge.
The 16th Amendment must be read in conjuction with the whole document. It authorizes federal taxation of income.
The issue would be an equal protection challeneg, which would most likely fail given what I have outlined. Benign discrimination based on race has a lower standard of review. In any case, this isn't racial discrimination at all.
I don't doubt this would pass an equal protection challenge.
Ditto..
if you come across anything that refutes it, I'd sure appreciate a ping.
To: Gelato
Opposes reparations for slavery... on the other hand favors tax relief for descendants of slaves.
5 posted on 08/17/2004 12:23:51 PM PDT by Jim Robinson [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
You confuse the issue.
We are discussing the constitutional basis for taxation. There is a sound constitutional basis for progressive taxation.
I may be against it, but my feelings against it doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.
Something may be perfectly constitutional, but bad policy.
Your conclusions are noble, but the only issue we are discussing here is the legal authority. The legal authority, whether we like it or not, is sound.
I submit that what you are saying could legitinately be part of the analysis, but in no way does it limit the analysis to that one point.
In other words, you are right, but only adressing part of the issue. Reparations may be justified on the cultural grounds I outlined, having only peripherally do with damage suffered.
"We" means the USA. It's what we do. If you don't agree, that's fine. But it doesn't make the policy go away.
Well, I hope no one is driven to violence over the matter. In any case, should you bit hit like that, your course of reparations should be against the perpatrator, and not me!
And I don't agree with that. Nothing goes against the very principles of this nation more than treating some classes of citizens differently... I thought we as a nation had gone over that time and time again. Now, it rears it's ugly head once more...
No, I am not saying that.
To me, the factors that would go into reparations have nothing to do with your status in 2004. It has nothing at all to do with how sucessful (or unsucessful) you are.
It has everything to do with membership in a class as a descendant of a slave in the jurisdiction.
If you don't want the reparations, just don't take it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.