Here’s a new twist in the 2024 election drama: The National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) is making waves by arguing that Kamala Harris isn’t eligible to run for president. Their reasoning? A Supreme Court ruling from way back in 1857, the Dred Scott case, which they say affects her eligibility.
So, what’s the deal with this Dred Scott ruling? To jog your memory, this notorious decision declared that people held as slaves weren’t considered citizens. The NFRA is using this historic case to challenge the eligibility of Harris, as well as GOP hopefuls Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy.
According to the NFRA, the Constitution requires presidential candidates to be “natural born Citizens.” They argue that this means only those born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents can run for the highest office. They’ve pulled in opinions from Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to back up their claim, sticking to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Attorney Andrew Fleischman was the first to spotlight this unusual argument on social media, and it’s sparked a lot of chatter. Some folks on X (formerly Twitter) are scratching their heads. One user compared the NFRA’s reasoning to using a flip phone in the age of 5G—completely out of touch. Another wondered if this logic would mean even historical figures like George Washington wouldn’t qualify for the presidency.
The NFRA’s document, adopted last October, argues that many states and politicians have ignored this “natural born” requirement. They claim Harris, Haley, and Ramaswamy’s parents weren’t U.S. citizens when they were born, which, according to their interpretation, disqualifies them from running for president.
NFRA President Alex Johnson, who endorsed Donald Trump last year, defended the group’s stance.
He criticized the media for allegedly misrepresenting their position and took aim at Harris, calling her a “faux Democrat.” Johnson believes her policies are similar to those seen in totalitarian regimes and criticized the Democratic Party for exploiting voter ignorance.
It’s worth noting that the Dred Scott decision is widely regarded as one of the Supreme Court’s worst blunders. The 13th and 14th Amendments later overturned it, ending slavery and establishing that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen.
As this debate heats up, it’s clear that the NFRA’s arguments are stirring more than just constitutional questions—they’re adding a dramatic twist to the 2024 election saga. Whether these claims will influence the race remains to be seen, but they certainly make for an intriguing plot twist in American politics.
