Amid the heated election campaigns of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, a controversial claim has emerged from the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA). The group argues that U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris is ineligible to run for president, referencing the infamous 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court ruling, which held that individuals under slavery were not citizens. This surprising assertion has sparked outrage and debate, especially as the ruling in question was long ago overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments.
The Controversy: What the NFRA Claims
The NFRA, a conservative group, recently adopted a platform and policy document at their national convention, where they argued that the U.S. Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the presidency are not being correctly applied. They assert that a “natural-born citizen” must be born on U.S. soil to parents who are both U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth. This interpretation, which they claim is supported by originalist views of the Constitution held by late Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, would disqualify not only Kamala Harris but also Republican candidates Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy.
The NFRA’s document cites six cases, including the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, to support their argument. This 1857 ruling notoriously declared that enslaved individuals and their descendants could not be U.S. citizens. The group contends that the “natural-born citizen” requirement has been ignored by various states, politicians, and political parties, thus compromising the integrity of the presidency.
Public and Legal Reactions
The NFRA’s reliance on the Dred Scott ruling has been met with widespread condemnation. The decision, which is often cited as one of the worst in Supreme Court history, was effectively nullified by the 13th and 14th Amendments, which abolished slavery and granted citizenship to all individuals born in the U.S. The use of this outdated and overturned ruling to challenge Harris’s eligibility has been criticized as both legally unsound and racially charged.
Critics argue that the NFRA’s interpretation of the Constitution is not only incorrect but also dangerously misleading. Many legal experts have pointed out that under the 14th Amendment, anyone born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ citizenship status, is a natural-born citizen and thus eligible to run for president.
Historical Context and the Dred Scott Case
The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, rendered in 1857, was a pivotal and highly controversial ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. It declared that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and thus had no standing to sue in federal court. The ruling also invalidated the Missouri Compromise, which had prohibited slavery in certain U.S. territories.
However, the legal and social landscape of the United States was profoundly altered by the Civil War and the subsequent passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments. These amendments abolished slavery and established that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens, overriding the Dred Scott decision.
Conclusion
The NFRA’s attempt to disqualify Kamala Harris from running for president by invoking the Dred Scott ruling is not only legally flawed but also reflects a deeply problematic understanding of U.S. constitutional law. The group’s interpretation, if taken seriously, would disqualify many historical and current political figures, including several U.S. presidents. The backlash against this claim underscores the enduring relevance of the amendments that overturned Dred Scott, reinforcing the principle that all persons born in the United States are citizens with equal rights under the law.
Leave a Reply