Zone1 Broad-brush reparations to all blacks is unconstituional

[martybegan]

No, that means white contractors get 70 percent of the subcontracts.

Listen closely. The 30% requirement is the TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE.

They are required to meet a 30% Disadvantaged business total of the TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE.

You don't make any profit off of subcontracted work, so obviously they try to sub out as little as possible.

That means only minority/women owned subs are considered. anyone else can't get in the door.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You and your family benefitted from Jim Crow and you practice racism now. The case is against a the government to pay reparations. Nobody will be walking up to your house with n offering plate asking you for money to pay reparation. This has been stated numerous times and since whites like you claim to have such high IQ's you should stop making this stupid argument.

The fuck we did! I told you my Grandfather came here from Italy as a doctor in early 1900's. Stop pretending your owed ANYTHING! Nobody owes you anything!

Your boy Obama has done more to damage race relations than any Southern democrat

Pre-Obama: "A mind is a terrible thing to waste" -- United Negro College Fund

Post-Obama: Math is racist.

Also Post-Obama: When an Illegal votes, they become a citizen

 

[JoeB131]

If you are asking my tax money for it, which will result in my taxes increasing directly for it, you are asking me to pay for it.

If I have to pay for subsidies for Israel, you have to pay reparations.... Sounds reasonable to me.

An intangible benefit as best, and one that now is reversed because If i wanted to start a subcontractor company that does municipal work in NYC I wouldn't be able to because I am not a disadvantaged business owner.

So why is your only option sucking at the government teet?

 

[martybegan]

If I have to pay for subsidies for Israel, you have to pay reparations.... Sounds reasonable to me.



So why is your only option sucking at the government teet?

Nope. Reparations isn't the unconstitutional re-distribution of money to people solely based on race in violation of the 14th amendment. Foreign aid is another matter.

Why should non minority subcontractors be denied government contracts because of their race?

 

[JoeB131]

Nope. Reparations isn't the unconstitutional re-distribution of money to people solely based on race in violation of the 14th amendment. Foreign aid is another matter.

No, it's payment based on specific wrongs, and there are already precedents for it. (Payments to the Sioux nation and to Japanese Americans.)

Why should non minority subcontractors be denied government contracts because of their race?

Because they've already had 10 generations of white privilege.

 

[martybegan]

No, it's payment based on specific wrongs, and there are already precedents for it. (Payments to the Sioux nation and to Japanese Americans.)


Because they've already had 10 generations of white privilege.

In the first case there were verified treaties that were violated. Not Reparations.

In the 2nd case, those were paid directly to those impacted, and those impacted were US citizens and/or permanent residents by law denied constitutional rights. Slaves didn't have rights until made citizens via the amendment process.

Better ideas are like what happened in LA, where black people got back property wrongly taken from their families. verifiable wrongs fixed, not blanket reparations given unconstitutionally.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The violation of a Constitution right is a material harm.

Freedom of movement under United States law - Wikipedia​

​

As early as the Articles of Confederation the Congress recognized freedom of movement (Article 4), though the right was thought to be so fundamental during the drafting of the Constitution as to not need explicit enumeration.[4]​

​

The U.S. Supreme Court in Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868) declared that freedom of movement is a fundamental right and therefore a state cannot inhibit people from leaving the state by taxing them. In United States v. Wheeler. 254 U.S. 281 (1920), the Supreme Court reiterated its position that the Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to protect freedom of movement. However, Wheeler had a significant impact in other ways. For many years, the roots of the Constitution's "privileges and immunities" clause had only vaguely been determined.[5] In 1823, the circuit court in Corfield had provided a list of the rights (some fundamental, some not) which the clause could cover.[6][7] The Wheeler court dramatically changed this. It was the first to locate the right to travel in the privileges and immunities clause, providing the right with a specific guarantee of constitutional protection.[8] By reasoning that the clause derived from Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, the decision suggested a narrower set of rights than those enumerated in Corfield, but also more clearly defined those rights as absolutely fundamental.[9] The Supreme Court began rejecting Wheeler's reasoning within a few years. Finally, in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Supreme Court overruled Chief Justice White's conclusion that the federal government could protect the right to travel only against state infringement.[2][3][10]​

​

The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states:​

(1) the right to enter one state and leave another (an inherent right with historical support from the Articles of Confederation),​

​

(2) the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the "Privileges and Immunities" clause in Article IV, § 2), and​

​

(3) (for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally to native-born citizens (this is protected by the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause; citing the majority opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Stevens said, "the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ... has always been common ground that this Clause protects the third component of the right to travel.").​

​

When were blacks refused the right to travel? Millions travelled from the Jim Crow south to the North and West for employment and land over the years. As the Green Book shows, many travelled from the North and West INTO the Jim Crow South over the years.

 

[AZrailwhale]

But Black people still needed to know which places were safe for them to patronize.

Why would nations that never had Jim Crow, or in the case of Jamaica, were majority black, be unsafe for American Blacks to travel in?

 

[IM2]

The fuck we did! I told you my Grandfather came here from Italy as a doctor in early 1900's. Stop pretending your owed ANYTHING! Nobody owes you anything!

Your boy Obama has done more to damage race relations than any Southern democrat

Pre-Obama: "A mind is a terrible thing to waste" -- United Negro College Fund

Post-Obama: Math is racist.

Also Post-Obama: When an Illegal votes, they become a citizen

Yes, your Italian grandfather benefitted from Jim Crow.

Obama did no damage to race relations. You can't do more damage something that was never fixed.

Yoiur last 3 lines are lies and you have shoown that you're a racist.

 

[IM2]

Listen closely. The 30% requirement is the TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE.

They are required to meet a 30% Disadvantaged business total of the TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE.

You don't make any profit off of subcontracted work, so obviously they try to sub out as little as possible.

That means only minority/women owned subs are considered. anyone else can't get in the door.

Yes, and 70 percent of non disadvantaged.

 

[AZrailwhale]

If you were in your 20s and could work for 20 years earning good pay as a commercial airline pilot but the government wouldn't allow it, would removing the law that says that the country must be racially segregated

1. compensate you for the 20 years of salary you could have earned but was not allowed to?
2. compensate you for having to retire 20 years early due to the mandatory retirement age because you didn't get started until 20 years later
3. compensate you for the loss of interest on savings, equity in a home, retirement
   benefits, etc.
   
   Removing the law without recompense for what one was deprived of, doesn't make one "whole" yet so many of you have the attitude of "well the law has been gone for 60 years, why haven't Black people caught up" like it's not glaringly obvious as to why

As far as I know, the government didn't prevent black pilots from airline careers. The airlines refused to hire them. I believe that was more for public relations reasons than anything else. Women pilots had the same problems, the travelling public didn't trust their abilities. Right or wrong the travelling public's opinions have to be considered by airlines. I've always refused to fly on DC10s because I know enough about the engineering of them to consider them unsafe under some conditions. The reason I feel that way is that unlike other aircraft of that era, the control cables are routed under the floor and in the event of a cargo door latch failure, the floor buckles jamming the controls. Several DC10s crashed for exactly that reason. Douglas came up with a fix for the latches, but I refuse to trust a patch job like that when there are alternatives. That's the way some people felt about black and female pilots. That's changed now.

For a direct comparison, I applied for the California Highway Patrol back in the mid seventies, I scored in the high nineties in all the tests and interviews. After waiting for months for a call to report for training, I called to inquire about my status and was told the CHP was hiring only minorities and women for the foreseeable future. Under your "logic" I should be paid reparations for the career that was denied me.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, and 70 percent of non disadvantaged.

That 70% is kept by the main contractor, and they can be of any race, or of no race due to being a publicly held company.

So a small white subcontractor is basically told they can't do municipal work because the main contractors are required to hire DBE subs via the requirement.

 

[AZrailwhale]

That doesn't "fix" anything though, it just makes it "no longer legal to do X, Y & Z".

The 13th amendment freed the slaves but that didn't keep people from refusing to treat them as equal citizens or hell just citizens period, until the ratification of 14th Amendment.

In other words, the mere passage of a law or an amendment of the constitution does not "fix" the harm caused by the fact that the previous laws/acts/amendments existed in the first place.

The government doesn't have the legal authority to determine the private thoughts and conduct of its citizens. It can only dictate public conduct.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Slavery is FANTASTICALLY simplistic. One person owning another and profiting off of his labor is wrong. Period. Full stop.



White people ended a situation they created. Slavery only became a profitable business in Africa because white people were paying top dollar for slaves. The economy of the Congo eventually became entirely based on the slave trade to the point where it had no other industries, then it was taken over by the Europeans in a way that was slavery in all but name.

Let's be blunt. White people are kind of awful. We need to be better.



Try to focus, buddy, White America doing something fucking evil isn't excused because somewhere else in the world, someone might have been doing something similar.

Debt Peonage was a system created in the south to return black people to slavery by inventing crimes such as "walking along the railroad tracks" and then putting people into servitude for years by generating debts they could never pay back.

The practice wasn't outlawed until 1942, and only then because we didn't want Nazi Propagandists to use it against us.

The North African Muslims were paying top dollar for slaves, bought hundreds of times more slaves and treated them far worse. The Black Africans would sell Black slaves to anybody, cash on the barrel head.

As for white people being awful, they have brought more advancements to the world than any other group.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Jim Crow was in all 50 states. AZrailwhale must not know history.

To a very minor extent you are right, in almost all states Jim Crow meant people of different races couldn't marry one another. The various laws have been posted here, I actually read them. The funny thing is, if I remember correctly, YOU are the one that posted the list.

 

[MarcATL]

Lisa et al do not realize that having had the opportunity to go to college does not negate having to live the majority of one's life under the government sanctioned oppression of legal racial discrimination that was Jim Crow.

Imagine how you would feel Lisa if instead of there being an ending to the threat you lived under while you were being stalked/targeted, that you lived under that threat your entire life. The taunting, the threats of violence, never knowing from which direction it may come or if you would escape with your life.

Jim Crow WAS NOT ABOUT INCONVENIENCE as Foxfyre seems to believe.

Racists and bigots are always trying to diminish and/or minimize white supremacy and racism.

 

[JoeB131]

In the first case there were verified treaties that were violated. Not Reparations.

You think that was the only treaty we've ever broken?

In the 2nd case, those were paid directly to those impacted, and those impacted were US citizens and/or permanent residents by law denied constitutional rights. Slaves didn't have rights until made citizens via the amendment process.

Wow, now you are stretching your logic, aren't you, buddy? If a wrong was done against a people by a government, they have a right to seek redress.

The point of the restitution to Japanese AMericans was not to make them whole (it was only $20,000) but to make amends and admit wrongs.

Better ideas are like what happened in LA, where black people got back property wrongly taken from their families. verifiable wrongs fixed, not blanket reparations given unconstitutionally.

Reparations wouldn't be unconstitutional, as stated above.

 

[JoeB131]

The North African Muslims were paying top dollar for slaves, bought hundreds of times more slaves and treated them far worse. The Black Africans would sell Black slaves to anybody, cash on the barrel head.

Now, you are just making shit up. Most of the slaves we bought came from Central Africa.

As for white people being awful, they have brought more advancements to the world than any other group.

And they also brought more misery to the rest of the world through slavery and colonialism.

 

[IM2]

That 70% is kept by the main contractor, and they can be of any race, or of no race due to being a publicly held company.

So a small white subcontractor is basically told they can't do municipal work because the main contractors are required to hire DBE subs via the requirement.

There are NO CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS where white contractors are a minority. Understand? AA itself provided whites with the majority of opportunities because whites are the majority race. But since whites have lived under the delusion that they aren't a race, people like you could not see that. Then we have the entitlement mentality that comes with racism that makes some whites believe they are supposed to get everything.

 

[martybegan]

You think that was the only treaty we've ever broken?


Wow, now you are stretching your logic, aren't you, buddy? If a wrong was done against a people by a government, they have a right to seek redress.

The point of the restitution to Japanese AMericans was not to make them whole (it was only $20,000) but to make amends and admit wrongs.



Reparations wouldn't be unconstitutional, as stated above.

It gives a solid basis for lawsuits seeking damages.

Again, in the case of the Japanese it was clearly unconstitutional what happened to them, and was paid only to those who suffered the acts.

Slavery wasn't unconstitutional until the 13th amendment banned it. Separate but equal was found to be wrongly Constitutional by Plessey, then correctly nullified by the SC.

That is the extent of what is owed to the people today, the bad laws were fixed.