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.
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.
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
The 13th amendment says that slavery’s abolished
Look at all these slave masters posing on your dollarThere’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.
Technically it just redefined slavery, but I know what you mean.
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?
I’m not even surprised by the racism in the Republican party anymore. It’s just sad how hateful these people are.
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.
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.
I nearly spat out my drink.
…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.
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
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.
Oh I’m sure they threw a monumental hissy fit about Obama’s presidency (and re-election). Didn’t mean shit then and doesn’t mean shit now, because their flagrantly racist bullshit has no validity.
Obama “wasn’t eligible” because he “wasn’t born in the US”. Even though Hawaii had been a state for a while when he was born.
He was also a secret Kenyan Muslim. Which also somehow disqualified him.
The republican party is nothing but bigots and racists these days. They aren’t sending their best.
And a lot of that false information about Obama birth was pushed by (wait for it…)
Donald Fucking Trump
Oh yeah, Obama straight up broke the Republican party. IMO, that’s the point where our timeline went batshit and started the rapid devolution to where we are now.
stay classy, guys
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.
According to them a natural born citizen can be born to naturalized immigrant parents.
Note that Donald Trump’s mother was born in Scotland but naturalized before Donald was born.
And Baron Trump has an immigrant mother.
An illegal immigrant, pornstar, parent.
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
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.
I acknowledge my error but see my reply here. There are, I think, some major issues with the reasoning.
That’s not true. An immigrant can be a naturalized citizen and then bear offspring with another US citizen. The immigrant is not natural horn but their child is.
You are correct that children of immigrant ancestors who are naturalized citizens would be citizens, I acknowledge my error here.
But there is still a major issue with this. Say a US citizen marries and has a child with an immigrant (non-naturalized). I assume this is not at all uncommon in our nation’s history, but I don’t know any statistics on it. Anyway, as far as anyone at the time is concerned, that child is a natural born citizen because they were born in the USA (birthright citizenship) to an American citizen. Those are the rules as I understand them. Since the child is already considered a natural born citizen, they would not go on to be naturalized.
This group is claiming that “a natural-born citizen has to be born in the US to parents who are citizens when the child is born” though. That means that the child in my example is not a natural born citizen by this group’s rules. If this group’s interpretation prevails, then that child, who obviously would not go on to be naturalized, was not really a citizen at all because one of their parents was not naturalized.
That further means, again by this group’s logic, any decedents from such a union would also not really be citizens because none of their children would go on to be naturalized before having children of their own. Any US citizen with an ancestor who was born to a non-naturalized immigrant (at the time of birth) is not actually a natural born citizen.
I would imagine a huge fraction of American citizens would fall into this category because of some ancestor being born to a non-naturalized immigrant and a citizen parent. I have no idea how one would determine what that fraction is though.
that child is a natural born citizen because they were born in the USA (birthright citizenship) to an American citizen.
If you are born in the USA, your parent’s citizenship is irrelevant. Have you ever heard the term “anchor baby”? Also, if one of your parents is a US Citizen then you are a US Citizen no matter where you were born. (There are some refinements to this that have changed over the years regarding how much time the parent has lived in the US) That’s what made the Obama thing so stupid — it doesn’t matter if he was born overseas, he’d still be a US citizen via his mother.
Correct. This group is arguing against that and claiming one is not a citizen unless *both *parents are current US citizens. I’m pointing out the flaws in their argument.
This group is claiming that “a natural-born citizen has to be born in the US to parents who are citizens when the child is born” though. That means that the child in my example is not a natural born citizen by this group’s rules. If this group’s interpretation prevails, then that child, who obviously would not go on to be naturalized, was not really a citizen at all because one of their parents was not naturalized.
If this was the law, I’m not sure why you assume that these non-citizens would not get naturalized? My family moved to the US when I was young and I became a naturalized citizen when I was in college.
That further means, again by this group’s logic, any decedents from such a union would also not really be citizens because none of their children would go on to be naturalized before having children of their own. Any US citizen with an ancestor who was born to a non-naturalized immigrant (at the time of birth) is not actually a natural born citizen.
I don’t know why you think no one would get naturalized in this scenario?
My family moved to the US when I was young and I became a naturalized citizen when I was in college
To be clear, I am arguing from the bizarre positions of the group in the posted article. I’m not agreeing with the group, just trying to point out some of the fallout should this group get their arguments before SCOTUS and win.
For the sake of argument, let’s say your parents had moved to the states before you were born. Since you would have been born in the states, you would have had birthright citizenship according to the 14th Amendment. Why would you then go through the process to become a naturalized citizen if you already had birthright citizenship? You wouldn’t, of course. This group is trying to argue that as a child of immigrants, you would not be a citizen just based on being born in the USA. Your own children in this scenario would not be citizens either since you would not have gone on to be naturalized and would not be a citizen yourself.
This group’s position is that anyone not born of two US citizens (at the time of birth) is not a US citizen. Neither, therefore, are their decedents because no one who thinks they are already a citizen would go out and get naturalized.
Good old GOP. It is amazing how much pathetic can be housed in one party.
They’re calling kamala harris a slave?
I think they’re calling every person of colour a slave.
In 2024, no less.
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?
they’re so scared of harris because they know they cant beat her
