Republican group cites Dred Scott ruling as reason Kamala Harris can’t be president
Republican group cites Dred Scott ruling as reason Kamala Harris can’t be president
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.”
The same document included former President Donald Trump’s running mate Ohio Senator JD Vance on a list of preferred candidates for vice president.
The group, which adopted the document during their last national convention held between October 13 and 15 last year, 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.
they're so scared of harris because they know they cant beat her
Slavery?! Their argument is freaking SLAVERY?!
This is a reach, even for these racist lunatics. It's gotta be part of a scheme of some kind, but I can't figure out what. Any ideas? Or are they just this shitty?
If there was any doubt just what they are planning... This should clear it up. If you aren't straight... Christian... And White
Your future in the US is not assor ed. The fact that you were born here, will not save you
They're ping-ponging between "She's not actually black" and "She's too black". Always a strong sign for a campaign.
She's not actually black" and "She's too black".
so fascism.
they were successful in 2016 with that same shit. the maga base mainline this type of dissonance for breakfast.
in the end, maga is a pack of rabid, feral skunks and they will show up to vote - so damn close to everything they think they want.
but I think what we saw in 2020 was it. thats the totally of their vote. I don't think there is substantive additional out there.
however, I think there is a ton more "Republicans are now creepy weird" vote out there. it just needs to show up to the polls and be able to legally vote. the biden/kamala-quake shook anyones shit up enough to get her serious public attention. the vote we need is watching now so I am cool with every rock the insane clown GOPosse gives us.
This is such classic Republican bullshit. They believe that a universally panned decision made by a bunch of white men is superior to the constitutional amendments that overturned it.
It’s the same way they read the bible. The Old Testament is king, even though Jesus’s birth overturns most of it.
I mean the constitution is just a bunch of decisions, made by a bunch of white men, too
They're calling kamala harris a slave?
I think they're calling every person of colour a slave.
In 2024, no less.
Every single member of that organization should be afraid of showing their pathetic little fucked up faces in public for the rest of their lives.
Whoa.. the headline does not do the severity any justice. And yeah, the writer should just include a link to a related article with the pictures and names of the people that spouted this hateful ... Garbage.
“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.
They’re kinda forgetting about the whole 14th Amendment thing which changes the constitution to ban slavery. An amendment is very different than a law banning slavery.
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
Jack shit has found this to be the case lmao. The parents don't have to have citizenship. Every day, immigrants with green cards from all over the world are giving birth on US soil to US citizens.
Plus, if we follow this group's logic, most people would not be US citizens, because of how many people trace their lineage to immigrants. Alito, Scalia, and Thomas would thus not be citizens by their logic, and if that's the case, why are/were they even permitted on SCOTUS?
Republicans have truly scraped the bottom of the barrel at this point. In a sense we're blessed that such hateful people are such sheer idiots.
It also brings up an interesting point though -- why hasn't this Supreme Court, which is prolific in overturning past precedents, not vacated the Dred Scott decision yet? Curious, isn't it?
There's a special irony in relying on Clarence Thomas to vet your Dred Scott decision to try and deny a poc a place on the ballot.
They’re kinda forgetting about the whole 14th Amendment thing
Modern conservatives can and do argue that the 14th Amendment isn't valid because of the post-Civil War state of martial law. But then they'll argue that the original secession was legal, because there's nothing in the Constitution that says you can't secede. But also, there's penumbral rights afforded specifically to white Christian men. But then also, the 17th and 19th amendments don't count, because idfk something about the color of the fringe on the flag or some dumb confused legalistic bullshit.
It's all Calvinball. The end game of any purely legalist institution is just layer after layer of silly interpretations stacked to the upper atmosphere, with a bunch of old grouchy know-it-alls yelling "Stop breaking the law!" from behind it all.
The 13th amendment says that slavery's abolished
Look at all these slave masters posing on your dollaroh, hell!!! rtj on point.
Their interpretation isn't "originalist" or "strict" at all. It's just what they want to say, at any given moment. History would be very different if both of your parents had to be US citizens. The president of the US is required to be a "natural born citizen"
Of the 45[a] individuals who became president, there have been eight that had at least one parent who was not born on U.S. soil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_(United_States)
For one, Donald Trump might not be president because his mother was born in Scotland.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trumps-immigrant-mother
For those (uninformed) Trump supporters who claim she was a citizen when little Donny was born, that's true but her immigration process was much easier than it is today. This is it, in its entirety:
On May 2, MacLeod left Glasgow on board the RMS Transylvania arriving in New York City on May 11 (one day after her 18th birthday). She declared she intended to become a U.S. citizen and would be staying permanently in America.
Though the 1940 census form filed by Mary Anne and her husband, Fred Trump, stated that she was a naturalized citizen, she did not actually become one until March 10, 1942.[1][6][7] However, there is no evidence that she violated any immigration laws prior to her naturalization, as she frequently traveled internationally and was afterwards able to re-enter the U.S.
[She] became a naturalized citizen in March 1942
They ignored the 14th for the Dobbs decision. This is right in line with current SCOTUS jurisprudence.
Illegitimate SCOTUS.
Madison v Marbury was wrongly decided, CMV.
They must be using the Constitution that Trump was selling that was missing the 11th-27th amendments.
So originalist they want to go back to alpha version 0.4
Technically it just redefined slavery, but I know what you mean.
I'm not even surprised by the racism in the Republican party anymore. It's just sad how hateful these people are.
Holy shit, these assholes are desperate and batshit crazy
George Washington would have been ineligible
Not like that I guess (he's white and also its unthinkable the guy who like helped found USAmerica couldn't be president)
When in doubt, double down on the racism too.
so how did George Washington qualify? or the first dozen?
I nearly spat out my drink.
stay classy, guys
Wooooow.
Edit: Also, what does this mean since Obama already was pres?
Doesn't mean shit. They're flinging shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. They used the same shit on Haley and Vivek, and it didn't stick.
...at the time of Adoption of this Constitution...
They're all dead so, no living person can be President?
key word is 'or'. You can be President if you're a natural born citizen, and they're suggesting that in order to be a natural born citizen one must prove that at some point in their family's history, two citizens produced offspring on each side of the family.
Which is absolutely bonkers because there are probably a hundred million white people in America that have no fucking clue if their great-great-great grandparents or great-great-great-great grandparents obtained citizenship. Someone's citizenship is illegitimate until proven otherwise with this kind of reasoning. We're gonna need a bigger prison system lol, maybe convert the western half of Iowa into an open-air detention center? The implications are hilarious to me
Even if their great-great grandparents weren't citizens, being born on US soil makes them natural-born US citizens.
If they maintain this sort of thinking then nobody in my very white, very extended family whose been here since 1733 and never officially got citizenship are eligible for the presidency.
Good old GOP. It is amazing how much pathetic can be housed in one party.
So, in other words, the burden of proof in regard to citizenship would be on the citizen in question, and they'd have to show at which point in their genealogical history both parents were citizens and had a child? Sounds totally not messy at all
And that would totally also apply to white people, right? … right?
They would actually have to show at every point in their genealogical history, every single ancestor, going back to the founding of the country, was a citizen. If even one of their ancestors was an immigrant, then every child descended from them is not a natural born citizen.
So... wait, so only Native Americans can be President?
Maybe we should let them have this one. It would be interesting, at least.
They would actually have to show at every point in their genealogical history, every single ancestor, going back to the founding of the country, was a citizen. If even one of their ancestors was an immigrant, then every child descended from them is not a natural born citizen.
I don't think that's required by their argument at all, merely that both parents be citizens (by birth or naturalized) when the child is born (this is stricter than is normally used, but is not ridiculously impossible to demonstrate like your suggestion). Them inventing this new definition and wanting to apply it to Kamala is just plain racism though.
Good point, the more I think about this the more absurd it gets. A handful of white xenophobes want to inadvertantly make 2nd generation Somali and 3rd generation Hmong the only truly legitimate citizens in America, shit is cracking me up
Stupid is as stupid dooooooes
The group's response:
The media’s suggestion that referencing a court case in a 30+ page document equates to endorsing every aspect of the case is inherently dishonest and misleading.
I would agree if this statement was about almost any other case, but Dred Scott v Sandford? Seriously? This reminds me of the recent argument that a free trial of Disney Plus creates a permanent agreement to binding arbitration even in the case of wrongful death. Sometimes it's best not to make a certain argument even if (and that's a big if) that argument is technically correct.
With that said, this organization is a group of especially right-wing Republicans but it isn't an official part of the Republican Party. More mainstream Republicans don't endorse these bizarre legal theories; they prefer to make up false claims which, if they were true, really would disqualify a person from being president.
Disney+ case, that's misinformation. Not saying it was a smart move on Disney's part, terrible PR and it was only to save some money, but the argument wasn't that. Disney was being roped in due to info on their website, they don't run the restaurant, and the website would fall under the jurisdiction of the Disney+ TOS. Again, it was a bad decision on their part and I also don't think that Binding Arbitration agreements should exist in TOS in the first place, but the meme about the headline isn't true.
Source: https://youtu.be/hiDr6-Z72XU
The Independent - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Independent:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News