Ok, this has nothing to do with modern day reparations, rather it has to deal with reparations just after the slaves got their freedom.
I just had a heated discussion with someone else(who I later found was taking the other side but I didn't know it 
) about reparations and whatnot. Anyways, my philosophy is that when someone commits a crime against someone, they should pay back the victim. I also view slavery as a horrible institution that violates human rights. However, during the discussion retroactive laws came up. I don't believe that someone should be punished for doing something that, while possibly reprehensible, was legal at the time they did it.
It's always been my policy that the actual slave owners should have paid reparations at the time, however after the discussion I realized that my stance on retroactive laws was a direct contradiction of that. I'm a person who believes that you shouldn't believe in contradicting things, because they both can't be true if there is really a contradiction. So, right now I'm not sure, and I'm still thinking on it so I can resolve the contradiction one way or another.
Actually my thinking was much like yours, but now that you mention it retroactive laws are "ex post facto" laws which are forbidden by Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution.
Poll
