But the framers of the Constitution never mentioned a right to vote. They didn’t forget – they intentionally left it out. To put it most simply, the founders didn’t trust ordinary citizens to endorse the rights of others.
They were creating a radical experiment in self-government paired with the protection of individual rights that are often resented by the majority. As a result, they did not lay out an inherent right to vote because they feared rule by the masses would mean the destruction of – not better protection for – all the other rights the Constitution and Bill of Rights uphold. Instead, they highlighted other core rights over the vote, creating a tension that remains today.
Many of the rights the founders enumerated protect small groups from the power of the majority – for instance, those who would say or publish unpopular statements, or practice unpopular religions, or hold more property than others. James Madison, a principal architect of the U.S. Constitution and the drafter of the Bill of Rights, was an intellectual and landowner who saw the two as strongly linked.
At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Madison expressed the prevailing view that “the freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty,” meaning only people who owned land debt-free, without mortgages, would be able to vote. The Constitution left voting rules to individual states, which had long-standing laws limiting the vote to those freeholders.
In the debates over the ratification of the Constitution, Madison trumpeted a benefit of the new system: the “total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity.” Even as the nation shifted toward broader inclusion in politics, Madison maintained his view that rights were fragile and ordinary people untrustworthy. In his 70s, he opposed the expansion of the franchise to nonlanded citizens when it was considered at Virginia’s Constitutional Convention in 1829, emphasizing that “the great danger is that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the Minority.”
The founders believed that freedoms and rights would require the protection of an educated elite group of citizens, against an intolerant majority. They understood that protected rights and mass voting could be contradictory.
What Americans think of as the right to vote doesn’t reside in the Constitution, but results from broad shifts in American public beliefs during the early 1800s. The new states that entered the union after the original 13 – beginning with Vermont, Kentucky and Tennessee – did not limit voting to property owners. Many of the new state constitutions also explicitly recognized voting rights.
As the nation grew, the idea of universal white male suffrage – championed by the commoner-President Andrew Jackson – became an article of popular faith, if not a constitutional right.
After the Civil War, the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, guaranteed that the right to vote would not be denied on account of race: If some white people could vote, so could similarly qualified nonwhite people. But that still didn’t recognize a right to vote – only the right of equal treatment. Similarly, the 19th Amendment, now 100 years old, banned voting discrimination on the basis of sex, but did not recognize an inherent right to vote.
These disputes often invoke an incorrect assumption – that voting is a constitutional right protected from the nation’s birth. The national debate over representation and rights is the product of a long-run movement toward mass voting paired with the longstanding fear of its results.
The nation has evolved from being led by an elitist set of beliefs toward a much more universal and inclusive set of assumptions. But the founders’ fears are still coming true: Levels of support for the rights of opposing parties or people of other religions are strikingly weak in the U.S. as well as around the world.
Americans may have come to believe in a universal vote, but that value does not come from the Constitution, which saw a different path to the protection of rights.
President Trump‘s claim that he has “total” authority to decide when and how to reopen parts of the country shuttered by the coronavirus is sparking congressional backlash, including from members of his own party.
Trump, speaking during a White House press briefing Monday, said he has the “authority” to force governors, who have been issuing the stay-at-home orders, to reopen schools, businesses and other institutions in their state.
But GOP lawmakers, as well as Democrats, fired back Tuesday, sending a warning shot to Trump that under the Constitution he does not have unlimited powers. They also warned against overreaching.
“The constitution doesn’t allow the federal gov’t to become the ultimate regulator of our lives because they wave a doctor’s note,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tweeted Tuesday.
“Powers not delegated are RESERVED to states & the PEOPLE. If we dispense with constitutional restraints, we will have more to worry about than a virus,” added Paul, who has also been critical of governors he views as going too far during the pandemic.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said that while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the White House would be providing guidelines, the Constitution and “common sense” dictate that decisions about when to reopen shuttered parts of the country are made at the state level.
“It’s going to be the governors that are going to make decisions about when certain activities are allowed. …That is the appropriate place where I think some of these orders will begin to be modified,” Rubio said, adding that the federal guidance would be “influential.”
Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) didn’t directly mention Trump but tweeted on Monday night that “the federal government does not have absolute power.”
Republicans were joined by Democrats, and some governors, as well as Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.), who left the Republican Party last year.
Amash and Democratic Reps. Tom Malinowski (N.J.) and Dean Phillips (Minn.) unveiled a one-page resolution on Tuesday that states “when someone is the president of the United States, their authority is not total.”
“State governments are not local branches of the federal government; they have different powers and functions. Putting one government in charge of everything does not strengthen our system; it weakens our system and makes everyone more vulnerable to serious errors,” Amash added in a tweet.
When, and how, to reopen shuttered parts of the country has emerged as a key point of debate within the government.
Trump has appeared eager to reopen the country sooner rather than later as the coronavirus has wrecked havoc on the U.S. economy months before the 2020 election.
He’s expected to announce a panel on Tuesday that will be tasked with determining the criteria for lifting coronavirus restrictions.
Governors of six northeast states announced on Monday they were forming a group to create joint recommendations on how to reopen their economies.
Democratic senators are planning to introduce legislation to create a 10-15 member panel that would be responsible for coming up and implementing a plan to reopen closed parts of the country.