NFRA Sparks Outrage By Using Dred Scott Case Against Harris Presidential Eligibility

Conservative Group Claims Harris and Others Are Not “Natural-Born Citizens”

The National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA), a conservative organization with a 90-year history, has stirred controversy by invoking the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court ruling in its challenge against the eligibility of Vice President Kamala Harris and other presidential candidates. The NFRA argues that Harris, along with Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy, does not meet the “natural-born citizen” requirement outlined in the US Constitution.

 

NFRA’s Argument and Interpretation

The NFRA’s platform asserts that the Constitution’s presidential eligibility clause requires candidates to be natural-born citizens. They interpret this as meaning that to be considered natural-born, one must be born on US soil to parents who are both US citizens at the time of the birth. This interpretation reflects a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, reminiscent of the judicial philosophies of late Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The organization cites six Supreme Court cases to support its argument, including the Dred Scott decision. The 1857 ruling, which infamously declared that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, were not US citizens, is considered by many scholars as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history and was overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments.

 

Historical Context of Dred Scott Decision

The Dred Scott v. Sandford case involved Dred Scott, an enslaved African American who sued for his freedom based on his residence in free territories. The Supreme Court ruled against him, declaring that African Americans could not be citizens and that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. This decision intensified sectional tensions and was a precursor to the Civil War.

 

Criticism and Flaws in NFRA’s Argument

Legal experts have criticized the NFRA’s argument as flawed and racially insensitive. The 1939 Supreme Court case Perkins v. Elg established that a child born in the US of alien parents is a US citizen, contradicting the NFRA’s claims. Additionally, the interpretation would disqualify several early US presidents, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who were born to parents who were British subjects before the US existed.

 

Political Motives and Racial Implications

The NFRA’s move has been seen as a political tactic, particularly given the organization’s endorsement of Donald Trump. Critics argue that the invocation of the Dred Scott ruling, a case associated with a dark chapter in American history, to challenge a woman of color’s eligibility reflects a form of racial dog-whistling aimed at undermining minority candidates. The NFRA’s stance has been widely condemned as an attempt to discredit Harris and other rivals in the 2024 presidential race.