GOP group claims Kamala Harris is ineligible to be president due to Dred Scott decision

23 August 2024

Editor's note: This article has been updated to clarify that Dred Scott lived in Wisconsin, which was included in the portion of the Louisiana Territory that outlawed slavery.

A prominent Republican group is citing one of the most reviled Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions in American history to justify its case that Vice President Kamala Harris should be deemed ineligible to run under the U.S. Constitution.

In an official resolution, the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) – a 90 year-old GOP-aligned organization that counted former President Ronald Reagan among its membership — took the position that Harris should not be allowed to hold the office of president, citing several "precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court cases." Among the six cases the NFRA cited was the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of 1857, which is regarded as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions of all time, if not the worst ever.

"Several states, candidates, and major political parties have ignored this fundamental Presidential qualification, including candidates Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy and Kamala Harris whose parents were not American citizens at the time of their birth," the NFRA's resolution read.

The resolution — which attorney Andrew Fleischman posted to the social media platform Bluesky — cited Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, which pertains to only natural-born U.S. citizens being eligible to serve as president. The NFRA argued that the phrase "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."

However, as numerous Bluesky users observed, applying the NFRA's interpretation of that clause would have made multiple U.S. presidents ineligible to hold office, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, among others. Dallas-based attorney Santiago Reich pointed out that because those presidents' parents were born on land classified as British colonies at the time, they would not meet the standard the NFRA set to define natural-born citizenship.

One of the other SCOTUS decisions the NFRA cited in its resolution was the 1939 Perkins v. Elg case, which states: "A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States." Reich called the NFRA "pretty f—ing bold" to cite a decision that undermines their core argument.

Other Bluesky users responding to Fleischman's post further argued that the mere existence of the 13th Amendment (the abolition of slavery), the 14th Amendment (equal protection for formerly enslaved Americans) and the 19th Amendment (universal women's suffrage) make the cases the NFRA cited in its resolution invalid.

"All of these cases except Perkins v. Elg have been abrogated or are completely unrelated," one user wrote. "Dredd[sic] Scott was overturned entirely by the 14th and its text cannot be meaningfully cited for any reason whatsof—ingever."

The Dred Scott case concerned a slave from Missouri who then lived in the free states of Illinois — which sided with the Union in the Civil War — and Wisconsin (which was initially a part of the Louisiana Territory that did not have slavery due to the 1820 Missouri Compromise). When Dred Scott sued for his freedom, the Supreme Court denied his petition stating that he lacked the standing to sue in federal court.

In the decision, Chief Justice Roger Taney asserted that Article III of the U.S. Constitution made it impossible for the descendants of slaves to have the rights of citizenship. The Supreme Court's own website has since referred to Dred Scott v. Sandford as "a legal and practical mistake."

From Your Site Articles