Posted on 03/27/2002 6:13:36 PM PST by vannrox
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:04:20 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Plaintiff Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, "claiming to represent all of the United States' 35 million African-Americans," filed the country's first lawsuit seeking reparations for slavery, against Aetna Inc., CSX Corp. and FleetBoston Financial Corp., among others.
Putting aside the obvious point that neither Farmer-Paellmann nor anyone else now alive has ever been enslaved in the U.S., it's hard to see how there could be any legal case against slavery as practiced in the pre-Civil War era. After all, slavery, evil though it was, was not only legal but specifically authorized by the Constitution until the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
In which case, it's about the money...
Has anybody asked that question yet?
I posted something similar to this yesterday in a thread. I said that if by some freak chance, this ever makes it to trial, it would be funny if the jury(which would have to be composed of all non-blacks) awarded damages in the amount of $1. The only problem with the above clipped paragraph is that as of a matter of law, slavery was legal, thus overiding any claim that "reparations are due".
This is funny too:
Plaintiff Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, "claiming to represent all of the United States' 35 million African-Americans,"
Do these goofs not realize that if this suit is for "all african-americans" then a jury would have to be made up of whites, hispanics, orientals etc because any black would be a party to the suit and would stand to benefit from an outcome.(and how would you find an impartial jury anyway) It would be just like me suing my neighbor for running over my fence, and my brother, sister and uncle being on the jury. I think the suit would be dropped right there if it ever made it to jury selection.
See, with these hustlers, they will not take anything into consideration that does not jive with their social agenda. They wont even listen to you and go through mental gymnastics to explain why your point is not relevant. Thats why they have built this "whites profited and continue to profit from the backs of slave labor" argument. Its very abstract(intentionally) and can't be quantified. And this "money is to be put into a fund to help.....yadda...yadda...." stuff. Thats hilarious! This would stand tort law on its head. Thats why it will never get heard.
In his classic The Unconstitutionality of Slavery (1845-1860), Lysander Spooner showed that a consistent reading of the US Constitution must hold slavery as unconstitutional.
Incidently, it was this work of Spooner's that laid the groundwork for his even more important Trial by Jury (1852) which outlined the practical mechanisms for the "constitutional" repeal of slavery in the north and the south (where jurors were able to thwart the judges' unconstitutional jury stacking via voir dire).
I wasn't making any point regarding the merits of reparations law suits. I just felt compelled to address what I considered your improper concession that slavery was constitutionally legal until the civil war and the 13th amendment.
Sure is! Courts can view it in no other way. I think they even state its a class action suit. This would preclude and black from serving on the jury if(big IF) it went to trial. They will scream bloody murder when they realize that anyone who stands to benefit from the outcome would not be allowed to be on the jury. They will probably claim that since a direct payment is not goung to the individual, then it doesn't apply. But when the person filing the suit makes the statement that "this is on behalf of all black people", it kind of makes them all party to the suit, IMO. I know, they have sat around thinking they have covered certain legal grounds, but the entire basis of the suit is not grounded in law. I suspect it will be thrown out simply because few people would be able to prove standing. The only people who would even possibly have standing would be those who could prove they are ancestors of an actual slave owned by the company being sued. But regardless, they are ancestors, not the individual, and slavery was legal.
I don't have references, but I know this is not close to the first time a "descendant" of a slave has tried to file suit over what happened to their ancestor durring slavery. I believe there was a suit in California in the late 80's or early 90's where the descendants of a slave tried to sue the living relatives of the plantation owner for paintings(now valuable) that their former-slave relative had painted. They claimed the paintings belonged to them and they were stolen from their ancestor. I believe the court ruled that because slavery was legal, the plantation owner had the right to own the paintings(the other part is that the present black family had no interest in the paintings, and had even sold or disgarded others that the man painted later in life, and only became interested when they saw an article in a newspaper). I believe that "L.A. Law" used this as a bsis for one of their episodes.
I would agree that a strict reading of the Constitution, and disregarding that it defined slaves as 3/5 a white man, that it would make slavery unconstitutional. Unfortunately, that does not hold up in court. The legality is the only question, the constitutionality of pre-13th amendment affairs is not relevant. It would be the same as women claiming they had their constitutional rights violated before they were allowed to vote. Sure, I believe that something is either constitutional or unconstitutional forever, and it never changes, but we both know(unfortunately) thats not how the courts work.
Don't say that too loud around any lawyers, it might give them ideas for a new lawsuit.
"It isn't about money."?? You believe this - I'll sell you a nice bridge.
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.