408

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ChlkDstTtr@lemmy.world 206 points 3 weeks 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 73 points 3 weeks 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

[-] Pantsofmagic@lemmy.world 65 points 3 weeks ago

They must be using the Constitution that Trump was selling that was missing the 11th-27th amendments.

[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago

So originalist they want to go back to alpha version 0.4

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 24 points 3 weeks ago

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

Illegitimate SCOTUS.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 13 points 3 weeks ago

The 13th amendment says that slavery's abolished
Look at all these slave masters posing on your dollar

https://youtu.be/32hUIGnMpOY

[-] qprimed@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago

oh, hell!!! rtj on point.

[-] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

Technically it just redefined slavery, but I know what you mean.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world 107 points 3 weeks ago

I'm not even surprised by the racism in the Republican party anymore. It's just sad how hateful these people are.

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 104 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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)

[-] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 45 points 3 weeks ago

When in doubt, double down on the racism too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] aniki@lemmy.zip 95 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 19 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world 52 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago

They're ping-ponging between "She's not actually black" and "She's too black". Always a strong sign for a campaign.

[-] qprimed@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] finley@lemm.ee 52 points 3 weeks ago

stay classy, guys

[-] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 47 points 3 weeks ago

I nearly spat out my drink.

[-] SGforce@lemmy.ca 44 points 3 weeks ago

...at the time of Adoption of this Constitution...

They're all dead so, no living person can be President?

[-] _bcron@lemmy.world 31 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 37 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Wooooow.

Edit: Also, what does this mean since Obama already was pres?

[-] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 65 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

[-] Kalysta@lemm.ee 4 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] slowwooderrunsdeep@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

And a lot of that false information about Obama birth was pushed by (wait for it…)

Donald Fucking Trump

[-] slowwooderrunsdeep@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 31 points 3 weeks ago

Good old GOP. It is amazing how much pathetic can be housed in one party.

[-] _bcron@lemmy.world 27 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago

And that would totally also apply to white people, right? … right?

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 16 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

So... wait, so only Native Americans can be President?

Maybe we should let them have this one. It would be interesting, at least.

[-] _bcron@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

[-] Drusas@fedia.io 3 points 3 weeks ago

And Baron Trump has an immigrant mother.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Kalysta@lemm.ee 20 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I mean the constitution is just a bunch of decisions, made by a bunch of white men, too

[-] paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works 16 points 3 weeks ago

Laying the groundwork for post election

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago

Wouldn't help them post election. if Harris wins in November but for whatever reason can't serve, then Walz would be inaugurated instead.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago

Stupid is as stupid dooooooes

[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 10 points 3 weeks ago

They're calling kamala harris a slave?

[-] smeenz@lemmy.nz 7 points 3 weeks ago

I think they're calling every person of colour a slave.

In 2024, no less.

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

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?

[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 weeks ago

they're so scared of harris because they know they cant beat her

[-] norimee@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Slavery?! Their argument is freaking SLAVERY?!

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
408 points (97.2% liked)

politics

18863 readers
3984 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS