Tennessee Republican bill would limit federal office to natural-born citizens

Tennessee Republican bill would limit federal office to natural-born citizens
Tennessee Republican bill would limit federal office to natural-born citizens
Rep. Johnny Garrett, R-Goodlettsville, is an attorney who is sponsoring a bill legal staff have warned violates the Tennessee Constitution. (Photo: John Partipilo)

Rep. Johnny Garrett, a Goodlettsville Republican and candidate for Congress in Tennessee’s 6th District, has filed a bill that would bar some U.S. citizens from running for federal office. (Photo: John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout)

A Tennessee lawmaker is trying to disqualify some U.S. citizens from a shot at running for federal office, a move likely to face constitutional questions as Republicans target immigrants this session.

House Bill 2036 sponsored by state Rep. Johnny Garrett of Goodlettsville would prohibit people from seeking election to federal positions in the U.S. House and Senate if they hold dual citizenship or are not a natural-born citizen, meaning they were born in the United States or were born abroad to parents who are U.S. citizens. The measure is being sponsored in the Senate by state Sen. Brent Taylor of Shelby County.

Garrett, who is running for Tennessee’s 6th Congressional District seat, filed the bill Friday, saying in a release it sets a “clear and uniform eligibility standard” matching the requirements to run for the presidency and designed to support citizenship principles and public confidence.

It is one of roughly a dozen bills Republicans have filed this session aimed at immigrants, though this one singles out U.S. citizens.

Tennesseans should have full confidence that those serving at the highest levels of government put America first. If you want to represent our state in Washington, being born in the United States should be a basic qualification. That standard already applies to the presidency, and it should apply to all federal offices. This legislation ensures Tennessee is represented by leaders with an unquestioned allegiance to our nation and do not hold dual citizenship from foreign adversary nations,” Garrett, an attorney, said in a statement.

To serve in the U.S. House, a person must be at least 25 years old and a citizen for seven years, in addition to living in the state where elected. A person must be at least 30 and a citizen for nine years to serve in the Senate.

Federal lawmakers determined that a seven-year citizenship would enable foreign-born citizens to take part in the government while making sure they had learned about the country and weren’t likely to be influenced by loyalty to their birth land, according to an overview of the House qualifications clause.

Vanderbilt University political science professor John Geer predicted such a bill would meet a court challenge if it becomes law because, while the Constitution says presidents must be natural-born citizens, that requirement doesn’t apply to Senate and House members.

Nashville attorney Daniel Horwitz, a constitutional expert, also said Friday the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled “that the framers intended the Constitution to be the exclusive source of qualifications for Members of Congress, and that the framers thereby ‘divested’ states of any power to add qualifications.”

MTSU political science professor John Vile said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the qualifications for federal office are “exclusive.” In other words, additions and subtractions can’t be made to them, he said.

Vile cited Powell v. McCormack, a 1969 case in which the Supreme Court found that Rep. Adam Clayton Powell of New York should be seated in Congress as long as he met the constitutional requirements for being a member. The House voted to deny Powell from taking office in 1966 after he was charged with misappropriating funds and abusing the court system.

The fact that the Constitution’s framers required the president to be a natural-born citizen, but not members of Congress, shows that they thought about the implications of citizenship when setting qualifications, Vile added.

A 1995 Supreme Court case out of Arkansas also found that states can’t put term limits on federal candidates, according to Vile, showing that states can’t set qualifications for federal positions.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in that case, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, “In the absence of a properly passed constitutional amendment, allowing the individuals states to craft their own congressional qualifications would erode the structure designed by the Framers to form a ‘more perfect Union.’”

A man in a suit and glasses points his finger while talking.
Tennessee house democratic caucus leader john ray clemmons of nashville said he is” tired of these posturing radicals wasting our time and taxpayer resources with their political posturing and nonsense. ” (photo: john partipilo/tennessee lookout)

Nashville attorney Daniel Horwitz, a constitutional expert, also said Friday the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled “that the framers intended the Constitution to be the exclusive source of qualifications for Members of Congress, and that the framers thereby ‘divested’ states of any power to add qualifications.” Consequently, the legislature lacks the authority to impose more qualifications for congressional candidates, he said.

“It certainly cannot impose new qualifications that contravene the Constitution’s unambiguous text,” Horwitz said.

Asked about the constitutionality of his bill, Garrett said in a statement, “It is fully within the bounds of the Constitution for states to decide on candidate qualifications for nominating parties in primary elections. This bill ensures that if you want to run as a party affiliated candidate for Congress or Senate, you must be a natural-born citizen of the United States and denounce any prior allegiance to another country. There will never be an Ilhan Omar representing the Volunteer State.”

Omar, a U.S. House member of Minnesota who was born in Somalia, is being targeted by President Donald Trump, who called for an investigation this week into her accumulation of wealth. 

Garrett’s bill doesn’t mention primary elections or selection by parties for a congressional seat.

State Rep. John Ray Clemmons of Nashville called Garrett’s bill unconstitutional and “nuts.” 

“I’m frankly tired of these posturing radicals wasting our time and taxpayer resources with their political posturing and nonsense when we should be laser-focused on lowering costs of living, fixing our roads, increasing access to healthcare and balancing an inflated budget,” Clemmons said in a statement to the Lookout.

Anita Wadhwani contributed to this story.


GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.




Discover more from RSS Feeds Cloud

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Discover more from RSS Feeds Cloud

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading