Julian Castro's proposal sounds great to his "woke" constituency and the liberal media, but is actually a non-sensical non-sequitur

2020 Democratic Presidential candidate Julián Castro propelled the issue of reparations for the descendants of slaves into the national debate in March when he asked “If, under the Constitution, we compensate people because we take their property, why wouldn’t you compensate people who actually were property?”

Castro seems to be referring to the power of eminent domain granted to the Federal government under the 5th Amendment, which reads:

... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Castro's argument appeals to the "woke" constituency of the Democratic Party and to the liberal media, but is, of course, a complete non-sequitur. The only logical argument that can be made on the basis of the 5th Amendment is: “If, under the Constitution, we compensate people because we take their property, why wouldn’t we compensate the descendants of former slaveholders, whose property (slaves) was taken from them through the Emancipation Proclamation?” Unfortunately, actually being logically consistent generally means you end up sounding a lot less "woke."