Resolution: The US Congress cannot merely legislate reparations for descendants of slaves
Waiting for the contender's third argument.
The round will be automatically forfeited in:
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Resolution: The US Congress cannot merely legislate reparations for descendants of slaves.
Description: The notion of reparations payments to descendants of slaves in the U.S. has been a political discussion for generations. As initiator, I contend, and my BoP is that Congress cannot enact ordinary law to authorize and mandate such payment. Con will take the opposing view, and BoP, that Congress can enact such legislation.
US Congress: The legislative body of the U.S. government, consisting of the Senate and House of Representatives.
Legislate: The function of US Congress to enact federal law
Reparations: Proposed authorized payment by the U.S. Government in cash or tax credit to descendants of black and indigenous tribal slaves for actions caused by the U.S. Government of obvious mistreatment up to, and including death of ancestors.
Slaves: Any black and indigenous tribal persons sold into slavery by slave traders to U.S. citizens during the 17th to 19th centuries, inclusive, from 1619 and ending by act of Congress by the passage and ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865. Slavery being understood to be the act of imposed labor with no compensation to slaves while profiting slave owners, and which had the added shame of physical, mental, and spiritual abuse of slaves in many cases.
Indigenous: [Relative to the parameters of this debate] People who populated the North American continents before the arrival of European [predominantly] immigrants. I hesitate to use the term “Native American” because that term is not accurately descriptive of the definition “indigenous.” “American,” and "America" are European terms not created by the indigenes.
Tribes: Names of indigenous tribes established by themselves, such as: Cherokee, Iroquois, Crow, Navajo.
R1, R2: Argument, rebuttal, defense
R3: No new argument; rebuttal, defense, conclusion only
All argument, defense, rebuttal, and sourcing will be listed within the context of the debate argument rounds only, except sourcing may also be listed within comments within the debate file to conserve maximum space for argumentation, but only during the argumentation’s three rounds. Neither participant may consult with any person associated with DART to serve as a sourced citation as a feature of participant’s argument.
No waived rounds. No more than one round may be forfeited, or forfeiture of entire debate will result. Concession in any round is a debate loss.
No declaration of victory will be made but in the 3rd round. No declaration of assumption of the opponent’s concession or forfeit in any round. These conditions will be obvious to voters only by either participant’s own declaration.
Arguments, rebuttals, defenses, or conclusions may not address voters directly for voting suggestions beyond statement of validity for arguments, et al, made in all rounds. Participants may encourage voters/readers to read/examine any portion of, or entire rounds.
Therefore, based on past SCOTUS decisions and the past acts of Congress it is clear that Congress does have the power to legislate reparations for descendants of slaves. As stated in my introduction, I will refute PRO’s misguided arguments in the next round.
Rebuttal I: Constitutional law
1d: Therefore, no law may be passed in Congress that imposes attainder or ex post facto conditions. There is no conditional allowance in the constitutional clause; it exists in clear opposition to the proposal of reparations, particularly in the latter case; ex post facto law, which, by definition, imposes retroactive effect; i.e., law imposing its enforcement before the enactment of the law.
Ex post facto
My opponent is mistaken on the application of the constitution between civil and criminal law. In the Supreme Court decision of Calder v. Bull, a case which has been upheld many times in subsequent decisions, the ruling is clear that it only applies to criminal law, and not civil law. Reparations for slavery fall into the realm of civil law and therefore, the section of the constitution referred to by my opponent does not apply to this situation. 
The 'Bill of Attainder', however, does apply to civil law and thus requires a different rebuttal. The issue with PRO's argument here is that it is required that there requires a specific intent in the Act to 'punish'.  As decided in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977), a court when deciding such a case must look “to its terms, to the intent expressed by Members of Congress who voted its passage, and to the existence or nonexistence of legitimate explanations for its apparent effect,”. A slavery reparations act is not intended to punish the current United States Government, but to help the decedents of slaves who were victims of a historical Government's actions. The US Government supports victims of other Government's historical and current misdeeds, such as supporting asylum seekers, which is not seen as a punishment.
Additionally, in the case of South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966), when argued that the Voting Rights Act was a Bill of Attainder against the state of South Carolina, ruled that only a person may be victim of a Bill of Attainder, and as such the State of South Carolina, nor the US Government are recognised as people in the wording of the Constitution and thus this argument does not apply to this situation. 
PRO's argument here is that there is no 'right to reparation' and that there is not a justifiable reason for Congress to decide to legislate for reparations over slavery. They refer to it as an 'inappropriate' decision for Congress to make. This is irrelevant to the power of the elected representatives in Congress to legislate for slavery reparations.
PRO takes issue with me bringing in other cases of similar effect that have not been struck down by the Supreme Court. PRO argues that the Japanese-American internment camps example is irrelevant and out of the scope of the debate due for two reasons (IVa 1&2). These reasons are that Japanese-Americans are not decedents of slaves and therefore fall outside the resolution's scope.
I agree that this case does not prove my point, but was simply supporting evidence to the fact that a Bill passed that paid out to the decedents of a victimised group of individuals for an event that was lawful at the time. This would have the exact same constitutional implications as any slavery reparations and the fact the Supreme Court has upheld this Act of Congress is a further proof as to my Rebuttal I in which the 'ex post facto' clause only applies to criminal, not civil law.
Response to Rebuttal V: Case Law
PRO misunderstands the argument I was making. I was using those affirmative action cases as a speculation as to the precedent SCOTUS may take into account when making a hypothetical judgement on a case on the constitutionality of an Act of Congress granting reparations to decedents of slaves.
As I believe this is no longer a point of contention, nor an argument one way or the other on the resolution a hand, I will drop this argument.
Response to Rebuttal VI: Conclusion
After dropping my previous 'Case Law' argument, I will as well drop my R1 conclusion.
I have proven that my opponent's argument on a bill of attainder (doesn't punish and doesn't apply to Governments) and ex post facto (doesn't apply to civil law) are irrelevant to the motion and thus have "dismantle[d] the Resolution"