this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
410 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19077 readers
4181 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) has cited the infamous 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, which stated that enslaved people weren’t citizens, to argue that Vice President Kamala Harris is ineligible to run for president according to the Constitution.

The group also challenged the right of Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley to appear on Republican primary ballots.

The Republican group’s platform and policy document noted that “The Constitutional qualifications of Presidential eligibility” states that “No person except a natural born Citizen, shall be eligible, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

The same document included former President Donald Trump’s running mate Ohio Senator JD Vance on a list of preferred candidates for vice president.

The group, which adopted the document during their last national convention held between October 13 and 15 last year, goes on to argue in the document that a natural-born citizen has to be born in the US to parents who are citizens when the child is born, pointing to the thinking of Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ChlkDstTtr 209 points 2 months ago (7 children)

“An originalist and strict constructionist understanding of the Constitution in the Scalia and Thomas tradition, as well as precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court cases ... have found that a ‘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,” the document states.

The group then cites six cases including *Dred Scott v Sandford. *The 1857 ruling came a few years before the 1861 outbreak of the US Civil War over the issue of slavery, stating that enslaved people could not be citizens, meaning that they couldn’t expect to receive any protection from the courts or the federal government. The ruling also said that Congress did not have the power to ban slavery from a federal territory.

They’re kinda forgetting about the whole 14th Amendment thing which changes the constitution to ban slavery. An amendment is very different than a law banning slavery.

[–] [email protected] 75 points 2 months ago

Their interpretation isn't "originalist" or "strict" at all. It's just what they want to say, at any given moment. History would be very different if both of your parents had to be US citizens. The president of the US is required to be a "natural born citizen"

Of the 45[a] individuals who became president, there have been eight that had at least one parent who was not born on U.S. soil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_(United_States)

For one, Donald Trump might not be president because his mother was born in Scotland.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trumps-immigrant-mother

For those (uninformed) Trump supporters who claim she was a citizen when little Donny was born, that's true but her immigration process was much easier than it is today. This is it, in its entirety:

On May 2, MacLeod left Glasgow on board the RMS Transylvania arriving in New York City on May 11 (one day after her 18th birthday). She declared she intended to become a U.S. citizen and would be staying permanently in America.

Though the 1940 census form filed by Mary Anne and her husband, Fred Trump, stated that she was a naturalized citizen, she did not actually become one until March 10, 1942.[1][6][7] However, there is no evidence that she violated any immigration laws prior to her naturalization, as she frequently traveled internationally and was afterwards able to re-enter the U.S.

[She] became a naturalized citizen in March 1942

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Anne_MacLeod_Trump

[–] Pantsofmagic 65 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They must be using the Constitution that Trump was selling that was missing the 11th-27th amendments.

[–] fluxion 12 points 2 months ago

So originalist they want to go back to alpha version 0.4

[–] Dkarma 24 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They ignored the 14th for the Dobbs decision. This is right in line with current SCOTUS jurisprudence.

Illegitimate SCOTUS.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The 13th amendment says that slavery's abolished
Look at all these slave masters posing on your dollar

https://youtu.be/32hUIGnMpOY

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

oh, hell!!! rtj on point.

[–] PapaStevesy 11 points 2 months ago

Technically it just redefined slavery, but I know what you mean.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 8 points 2 months ago

There's a special irony in relying on Clarence Thomas to vet your Dred Scott decision to try and deny a poc a place on the ballot.

They’re kinda forgetting about the whole 14th Amendment thing

Modern conservatives can and do argue that the 14th Amendment isn't valid because of the post-Civil War state of martial law. But then they'll argue that the original secession was legal, because there's nothing in the Constitution that says you can't secede. But also, there's penumbral rights afforded specifically to white Christian men. But then also, the 17th and 19th amendments don't count, because idfk something about the color of the fringe on the flag or some dumb confused legalistic bullshit.

It's all Calvinball. The end game of any purely legalist institution is just layer after layer of silly interpretations stacked to the upper atmosphere, with a bunch of old grouchy know-it-alls yelling "Stop breaking the law!" from behind it all.

[–] assassin_aragorn 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

have found that a ‘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

Jack shit has found this to be the case lmao. The parents don't have to have citizenship. Every day, immigrants with green cards from all over the world are giving birth on US soil to US citizens.

Plus, if we follow this group's logic, most people would not be US citizens, because of how many people trace their lineage to immigrants. Alito, Scalia, and Thomas would thus not be citizens by their logic, and if that's the case, why are/were they even permitted on SCOTUS?

Republicans have truly scraped the bottom of the barrel at this point. In a sense we're blessed that such hateful people are such sheer idiots.

It also brings up an interesting point though -- why hasn't this Supreme Court, which is prolific in overturning past precedents, not vacated the Dred Scott decision yet? Curious, isn't it?

[–] chronicledmonocle 109 points 2 months ago

I'm not even surprised by the racism in the Republican party anymore. It's just sad how hateful these people are.

[–] cheese_greater 105 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Holy shit, these assholes are desperate and batshit crazy

George Washington would have been ineligible

Not like that I guess (he's white and also its unthinkable the guy who like helped found USAmerica couldn't be president)

[–] Theprogressivist 46 points 2 months ago

When in doubt, double down on the racism too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 96 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Every single member of that organization should be afraid of showing their pathetic little fucked up faces in public for the rest of their lives.

[–] Badeendje 20 points 2 months ago

Whoa.. the headline does not do the severity any justice. And yeah, the writer should just include a link to a related article with the pictures and names of the people that spouted this hateful ... Garbage.

[–] UncleGrandPa 54 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If there was any doubt just what they are planning... This should clear it up. If you aren't straight... Christian... And White

Your future in the US is not assor ed. The fact that you were born here, will not save you

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They're ping-ponging between "She's not actually black" and "She's too black". Always a strong sign for a campaign.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

She's not actually black" and "She's too black".

so fascism.

they were successful in 2016 with that same shit. the maga base mainline this type of dissonance for breakfast.

in the end, maga is a pack of rabid, feral skunks and they will show up to vote - so damn close to everything they think they want.

but I think what we saw in 2020 was it. thats the totally of their vote. I don't think there is substantive additional out there.

however, I think there is a ton more "Republicans are now creepy weird" vote out there. it just needs to show up to the polls and be able to legally vote. the biden/kamala-quake shook anyones shit up enough to get her serious public attention. the vote we need is watching now so I am cool with every rock the insane clown GOPosse gives us.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 54 points 2 months ago

stay classy, guys

[–] Nuke_the_whales 48 points 2 months ago

I nearly spat out my drink.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 2 months ago (1 children)

...at the time of Adoption of this Constitution...

They're all dead so, no living person can be President?

[–] [email protected] 38 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Wooooow.

Edit: Also, what does this mean since Obama already was pres?

[–] Theprogressivist 66 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Doesn't mean shit. They're flinging shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. They used the same shit on Haley and Vivek, and it didn't stick.

[–] ThePowerOfGeek 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Oh I'm sure they threw a monumental hissy fit about Obama's presidency (and re-election). Didn't mean shit then and doesn't mean shit now, because their flagrantly racist bullshit has no validity.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Obama “wasn’t eligible” because he “wasn’t born in the US”. Even though Hawaii had been a state for a while when he was born.

He was also a secret Kenyan Muslim. Which also somehow disqualified him.

The republican party is nothing but bigots and racists these days. They aren’t sending their best.

[–] slowwooderrunsdeep 4 points 2 months ago

And a lot of that false information about Obama birth was pushed by (wait for it…)

Donald Fucking Trump

[–] slowwooderrunsdeep 3 points 2 months ago

Oh yeah, Obama straight up broke the Republican party. IMO, that’s the point where our timeline went batshit and started the rapid devolution to where we are now.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 months ago

Good old GOP. It is amazing how much pathetic can be housed in one party.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is such classic Republican bullshit. They believe that a universally panned decision made by a bunch of white men is superior to the constitutional amendments that overturned it.

It’s the same way they read the bible. The Old Testament is king, even though Jesus’s birth overturns most of it.

[–] Jiggle_Physics 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I mean the constitution is just a bunch of decisions, made by a bunch of white men, too

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Laying the groundwork for post election

[–] FlowVoid 19 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Wouldn't help them post election. if Harris wins in November but for whatever reason can't serve, then Walz would be inaugurated instead.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] just_another_person 14 points 2 months ago

Stupid is as stupid dooooooes

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They're calling kamala harris a slave?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

I think they're calling every person of colour a slave.

In 2024, no less.

[–] Etterra 8 points 2 months ago

This is a reach, even for these racist lunatics. It's gotta be part of a scheme of some kind, but I can't figure out what. Any ideas? Or are they just this shitty?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

they're so scared of harris because they know they cant beat her

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The group's response:

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.

I would agree if this statement was about almost any other case, but Dred Scott v Sandford? Seriously? This reminds me of the recent argument that a free trial of Disney Plus creates a permanent agreement to binding arbitration even in the case of wrongful death. Sometimes it's best not to make a certain argument even if (and that's a big if) that argument is technically correct.

With that said, this organization is a group of especially right-wing Republicans but it isn't an official part of the Republican Party. More mainstream Republicans don't endorse these bizarre legal theories; they prefer to make up false claims which, if they were true, really would disqualify a person from being president.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›