NYC Dept. of Health backs reparations to boost health for black New Yorkers

[Kamaji]

NYC Dept. of Health backs reparations to boost health for black New Yorkers

By Carl Campanile
July 18, 2023

Mayor Eric Adams’ administration is promoting reparations in a bid to curb health and wealth disparities of black New Yorkers — but the effort is being met with accusations that it’s “sowing racial divisiveness,” The Post has learned.

The proposal for federal reparations is spelled out in a bombshell report from the city’s Department of Health and the Federal Reserve Bank entitled “Analyzing the Racial Wealth Gap and Implications for Health Equity.”

“The goal of a [federal] reparations program would be to seek acknowledgment, redress, and closure for America’s complicity in federal, state, and local policies … that have deprived black Americans of equitable access to wealth and wealth-building opportunities,” the report said.

The city’s Health Commissioner Dr. Ashwin Vasan and his team offered three key recommendations including: a fresh approach to public health policy, how to improve data collections on wealth and health outcomes and getting the community more involved with health care decisions.

But moderate and conservative politicians opposed to reparations accused Adams’ health minions of turning into ideologues and social justice activists instead of doing their jobs.

*  *  *

Source:  https://nypost.com/2023/07/18/nyc-dept-of-heath-backs-reparations-to-boost-health-for-black-new-yorkers/

[Kamaji]

[andy58-in-nh]

As noxious as this sort of racialist nonsense might be, it will have one salutary effect: people who otherwise might have tried to "tough it out" will instead decide to move out of their Blue urban hell holes, and to saner parts of America. 

[Kamaji]

As noxious as this sort of racialist nonsense might be, it will have one salutary effect: people who otherwise might have tried to "tough it out" will instead decide to move out of their Blue urban hell holes, and to saner parts of America. 

Except that, once these urban blue-holes all vote for reparations they cannot afford, they will get the federal government to take over reparations payments, effectively meaning that there is no escape from this idiocy.

[andy58-in-nh]

Except that, once these urban blue-holes all vote for reparations they cannot afford, they will get the federal government to take over reparations payments, effectively meaning that there is no escape from this idiocy.

Only if Congress can be persuaded to vote for such spending, which might ignite a civil war. Which might be the point.

[Kamaji]

Only if Congress can be persuaded to vote for such spending, which might ignite a civil war. Which might be the point.

If we lose control of Congress in next year's elections, it will be voted for.

And there won't be a civil war.

[andy58-in-nh]

If we lose control of Congress in next year's elections, it will be voted for.

And there won't be a civil war.

We won't lose Congress unless Trump is the nominee and he manages to piss off even more Independents than he did last time.

But the next step would be the courts, because such a measure would be unconstitutional.

[Kamaji]

We won't lose Congress unless Trump is the nominee and he manages to piss off even more Independents than he did last time.

But the next step would be the courts, because such a measure would be unconstitutional.

Whether it was unconstitutional or not would depend on how it was drafted.

[andy58-in-nh]

Whether it was unconstitutional or not would depend on how it was drafted.

I don't see how "reparations" would ever fall within the taxing power of Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution or within the terms of the 16th Amendment.

[Kamaji]

I don't see how "reparations" would ever fall within the taxing power of Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution or within the terms of the 16th Amendment.

It falls under the spending power, if it's properly drafted.

[Fishrrman]

andy wrote:
"As noxious as this sort of racialist nonsense might be, it will have one salutary effect: people who otherwise might have tried to "tough it out" will instead decide to move out of their Blue urban hell holes, and to saner parts of America."

... which in very short time they will convert into "blue urban hell holes" as well.

The "reparations" band wagon rolls on, picking up steam and speed.
Soon it will burst into every large blue city in the country -- perhaps even in the red states (thinking of Dallas, Houston, St. Louis, etc.).

Like Arlo said long ago...
"It's a movement..."

[Smokin Joe]

As for Constitutionality, I think a 5th Amendment challenge would be in order.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And from the Fourteenth Amendment: Section 1:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And Section 4:

But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

 

Which would be a roundabout argument, but thus: because the value of slaves forcibly emancipated or otherwise manumitted was forbidden by law to be paid to the former owners, that value becomes a gift to those freed, even if done so by government itself. The former owners suffered the loss of their investments in those slaves (property, as defined), without compensation for that loss.

Reparations were already done at that time, by force of law, and without compensation to the former owners, as the bond value of each freed slave was not recovered by any party, and thus devolved to the former slave, who previously would have had to remit that amount to gain freedom from servitude.

 

[Kamaji]

As for Constitutionality, I think a 5th Amendment challenge would be in order.

And from the Fourteenth Amendment: Section 1:
And Section 4:
 

Which would be a roundabout argument, but thus: because the value of slaves forcibly emancipated or otherwise manumitted was forbidden by law to be paid to the former owners, that value becomes a gift to those freed, even if done so by government itself. The former owners suffered the loss of their investments in those slaves (property, as defined), without compensation for that loss.

Reparations were already done at that time, by force of law, and without compensation to the former owners, as the bond value of each freed slave was not recovered by any party, and thus devolved to the former slave, who previously would have had to remit that amount to gain freedom from servitude.

 

It's very simple:  there is a Congressional finding that the lingering effects of slavery continue to harm the financial and economic well-being of those who are descendants of slaves, and therefore, to remedy that lingering effect, Congress will provide a payment to those descendants.

Very simple, and very constitutional.