Do you think Texas v White, the supreme court case that said those acting in rebellion are not due the protections of the constitution, therefore allow a legal blockade to reparations?
My reasoning is this. My ancestors were property, even in the Union under Federal Law. Ergo, the claims of slaves has no legal merit due to the fact that you cannot be sued by your own property. Therefore, there is no legal leg to the reparations arguement.
The emancipation proclamation was an executive order, and is in itself an uncontitutional violation of due process. it was the 13th that set my people free, not an executive order.
Since slaves were property of rebels, and rebels do not have constitutional rights, the property of rebels are not afforded constitutional protections. Ergo slaves have no redress of grievnece under the laws as it now stands. To allow reperations would require a legislative act allowing constitutional protections for rebels and enemies of the usa.
2006-10-26
05:44:05
·
7 answers
·
asked by
lundstroms2004
6