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.

  • ChlkDstTtr@lemmy.world
    2091·
    23 days ago

    “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.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      74·
      23 days ago

      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

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Anne_MacLeod_Trump

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      24·
      23 days ago

      They ignored the 14th for the Dobbs decision. This is right in line with current SCOTUS jurisprudence.

      Illegitimate SCOTUS.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      91·
      22 days ago

      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.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      2·
      21 days ago

      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?