What was Dred Scott decision? GOP group uses controversial ruling to argue Harris shouldn't be president

WASHINGTON, DC: In a move that has ignited widespread outrage and backlash, the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) has invoked the notorious 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court ruling to argue that Vice President Kamala Harris is ineligible to run for president, as per The Independent.

The group's controversial stance has drawn significant criticism, particularly as it challenges the rights of Harris, as well as Republican primary candidates Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley, to appear on the 2024 Republican primary ballots.

Republican group NFRA cites Dred Scott ruling for argument against Kamala Harris

The NFRA, a conservative organization known for its strict constitutional interpretations, has included a reference to the Dred Scott decision in its official platform and policy document.

The 1857 ruling, widely regarded as one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history, declared that enslaved people were not citizens and therefore could not seek protection from the courts or the federal government.

The decision also asserted that Congress lacked the authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories, a stance that fueled tensions leading to the Civil War.

By citing this ruling, the NFRA argues that the constitutional requirement for presidential eligibility — namely, that a candidate must be a "natural born Citizen" — should be interpreted to mean that a candidate must be born on US soil to parents who are both US citizens at the time of the child's birth.

This interpretation, the group claims, aligns with the originalist views of late Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The NFRA's platform further contends that past presidential candidates, including Harris, Ramaswamy, and Haley, do not meet this stringent standard.

The group’s document asserts that these candidates, whose parents were not American citizens at the time of their birth, should be disqualified from running for president.

Attorney Andrew Fleischman brought attention to the document by posting about it on X (formerly known as Twitter), sparking a wave of reactions across social media.

In response to the criticism, NFRA President Alex Johnson stated to The Independent, arguing that the media's portrayal of the group’s platform is misleading.

He stated, "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."

NFRA's use of Dred Scott case sparks backlash online

The NFRA's decision to reference the Dred Scott case has unleashed a torrent of criticism on social media, with many users expressing their outrage and disbelief.

On X, a person remarked, "This is so incredible stupid, even for the GOP. Is there any chance that the Dems will use this ... In 2024, it seems that the only purpose of the Republican party is to generate funds for RINO Trump's legal bills."

Another said sarcastically, "Using a fringe philosophy of constitutional interpretation and relying on precedents that have been either overturned or superseded or mean the opposite of what they say will surely turn out well for them."

"This is wild. The 14th Amendment and the principle of Jus Soli (right of soil) supersedes all this. Keep in mind that they know this. The purpose is to muddy the waters," wrote one person.

Another added, "From John Birch to Birthers, it never stops being gross to watch Republicans do this."

"so desperate… back to birtherism," wrote one individual. One person wrote, "Modern Republicans basically don't accept the reconstruction amendments as legitimate, ironic given Republicans pushed to pass them."

Another pointed out, "The GOP is desperate and WRONG. Fact Check: Kamala Harris eligible to be president despite misleading posts." One netizen stated, "They never got past 1900 in their history classes."

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.