Shouldn't the (b)lacks be paying reparations to the Americans, instead?
It was THEIR parents who sold them into slavery, and it was the slavery issue that drove the Civil War and yet it was the Whites who almost exclusively died to free them.
A lot of White families lost their bread winners because of that war, and that war wouldn't have happened of the (b)lacks had stayed where they belonged.
And should the descendants of Whites who've never owned (b)lack slaves be forced to pay reparations to people who were never slaves?
And, finally, there is THIS:
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
I'm pretty sure that making taxing the Whites of today to pay the (b)lacks of today for what was perfectly lawful behavior 200 years ago...
a) is considered a "taint of the blood", and
b) is an ex post facto law.
Both being clear violations of the Constitution, just as clear as the requirement that only state legislatures can choose how the electors of a state are chosen.
So, not only would this BS "reparations" scam sail through the courts, people who oppose it will be called "raycyst".
[/quote]
