Republican group claims Kamala can't be President, cites Dred Scott case
Republican group claims Kamala can't be President, cites Dred Scott case
Group also challenged right of Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley to appear on Republican primary ballots
The National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) has cited the infamous 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, which stated that enslaved people weren’t citizens, to argue that Vice President Kamala Harris is ineligible to run for president according to the Constitution.
The group also challenged the right of Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley to appear on Republican primary ballots.
The Republican group’s platform and policy document noted that “The Constitutional qualifications of Presidential eligibility” states that “No person except a natural born Citizen, shall be eligible, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President
“An originalist and strict constructionist understanding of the Constitution in the Scalia and Thomas tradition, as well as precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court cases ... have found that a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is defined as a person born on American soil of parents who are both citizens of the United States at the time of the child’s birth,” the document states.
The group then cites six cases including Dred Scott v Sandford. The 1857 ruling came a few years before the 1861 outbreak of the US Civil War over the issue of slavery, stating that enslaved people could not be citizens, meaning that they couldn’t expect to receive any protection from the courts or the federal government. The ruling also said that Congress did not have the power to ban slavery from a federal territory.
I thought this was some kind of op, like someone making a fake Republican org and putting out an unhinged policy paper. Citing Dred Scott is crazy, especially since it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the argument that she's not a citizen.
You're viewing a single thread.
The group goes on to argue in the document that a natural-born citizen has to be born in the US to parents who are citizens when the child is born, pointing to the thinking of Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Ooh they're challenging birthright citizenship, I thought they were gonna argue that she was legally considered a slave.
This has been on the conservative agenda for a while now, but I think it's still too early to challenge this, even with the current Supreme Court. In order to actually change how this country determines who is and is not a "natural born citizen" you would need buy-in from Democrats, which the Reps don't have yet. Give it another decade or so when the climate refugees increase in number, then we'll see.
The way it reads to me is that Kamala’s ancestors were illegally granted citizenship by virtue of being slaves (Dredd Scott) so every subsequent birthright citizenship in her family tree is also invalid as a consequence, including her own.
So it’s not the institution of birthright citizenship that they are challenging. It’s that her ancestors were allegedly never citizens, so she can’t be a citizen only by virtue of her birth on American soil.
I don't think Kamala has any ancestors who were American slaves. Her father is Jamaican and her mother is Indian.
Huh. Idk then, that’s enough cranium measuring for me today