Republican Group Cites Controversial Dred Scott Ruling as Reason Kamala Harris Can’t Be President

By: Georgia | Published: Aug 25, 2024

The National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) has cited the 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court decision to argue that Vice President Kamala Harris is ineligible to run for president according to the Constitution. 

The infamous decision, which stated that enslaved people weren’t citizens, is now at the center of a contemporary political debate.

Expanding the Challenge

The NFRA’s challenge extends beyond Vice President Harris. The group has also questioned the eligibility of Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley to appear on Republican primary ballots. 

Advertisement
Vivek Ramaswamy gesturing while speaking into a microphone, with a blurred background indicating an audience setting

Source: Wikimedia Commons

They base their argument on the constitutional definition of a “natural born Citizen,” which has become a pivotal point in their legal reasoning.

Advertisement

Definition of a Natural Born Citizen

The group argues that a natural-born citizen must be born in the U.S. to parents who are citizens. 

Advertisement
Close-up image of the U.S. Constitution, showing the preamble and beginning of the text with "We the People" in prominent script

Source: Wikimedia Commons

They rely on “an originalist and strict constructionist understanding of the Constitution in the Scalia and Thomas tradition,” supporting their stance with precedent from Supreme Court cases, although specific cases were not directly quoted in the discussions.

The Significance of the Dred Scott Decision

The Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling, which came just a few years before the Civil War, declared that enslaved people could not be considered citizens and therefore, had no protection from the federal courts or Congress. 

Advertisement
Black and white historical photograph of Dred Scott, a Black man in formal attire, looking directly at the camera

Source: Wikimedia Commons

This decision is now being used by the NFRA to support their claims about presidential eligibility.

Trump Allies and Constitutional Debates

The NFRA’s policy document includes former President Donald Trump’s running mate, Ohio Senator JD Vance, among its list of preferred candidates, indicating their support within established Republican circles. 

Advertisement
JD Vance speaking expressively on stage, dressed in a casual blazer and shirt, with a dark background

Source: Wikimedia Commons

The document demonstrates the group’s commitment to what they see as the constitutional foundations of presidential eligibility.

Public Attention Through Social Media

The connection between the NFRA’s stance and the Dred Scott decision was initially noted by lawyer Andrew Fleischman on X, formerly Twitter. 

An oil painting of Dred Scott, depicted with a solemn expression, wearing a black suit and a colorful bow tie, against a muted background

Source: Wikimedia Commons

His observations have brought significant public and media scrutiny to the group’s interpretation of constitutional law.

Advertisement

Historical Precedents and Modern Implications

The NFRA’s strict interpretation of “natural born Citizen” could have historically disqualified many founding fathers like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, as their parents were British subjects at the time of their births. 

Classic oil painting of George Washington, featuring him with a solemn expression, wearing a black suit and white ruffled collar against a dark background

Source: Wikimedia Commons

This interpretation challenges long-standing views on presidential qualifications.

Advertisement

Reagan’s Legacy and Constitutional Interpretations

The fact that former President Ronald Reagan was a member of this organization ties today’s discussions to a broader historical context. 

A smiling Ronald Reagan in a suit and tie, with an American flag in the background

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Reagan’s association with the NFRA adds a layer of historical continuity to the group’s current constitutional debates.

Advertisement

Contradictory Court Cases

The group cites several cases to support their argument. 

A booth at an event hosted by the National Federation of Republican Assemblies, decorated with American flags, banners for Trump 2020, and promotional materials on a red-draped table

Source: National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA)/Facebook

However, legal precedents like the 1939 Perkins v Elg case contradict their stance by stating, “A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States,” directly opposing the NFRA’s criteria for presidential eligibility.

Advertisement

Legal and Historical Criticisms

The Dred Scott decision is widely regarded by many legal scholars as the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court, according to the U.S. Archives

Front view of the United States Supreme Court building, showing the classical architecture with its columns and the inscription "Equal Justice Under Law" at the top

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Its use in contemporary political debate has reignited discussions about its relevance and implications.

Advertisement

Constitutional Amendments and Their Impact

The 13th and 14th Amendments, which abolished slavery and established birthright citizenship, effectively overturned the Dred Scott decision. 

An old black and white sketch depicting Dred Scott and Harriet Robinson Scott, both dressed in mid-19th century attire

Source: Wikimedia Commons

These amendments are critical to understanding current citizenship and eligibility laws, yet they are being revisited in today’s legal arguments by the NFRA.

Advertisement

Looking Ahead to the 2024 Election

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, the NFRA insists that “only candidates who meet the natural-born citizenship standard, interpreted through an originalist and strict constructionist standard, be placed on the 2024 Republican presidential primary ballots.” 

Kamala Harris laughing heartily at a public event, dressed in a dark blue suit, with a blurred crowd and band in the background

Source: TheDemocrats/X

This stance could shape the selection of candidates and the overall election landscape.

Advertisement