The Consent Of The Governed
If you’re like me, you spend a lot of time thinking about our Declaration of Independence. Like Lincoln among other scholars, when confronting a dilemma of civics, I’ll look to the declaration before the constitution.
The Declaration of Independence is an articulation of the theoretical place of government. It references the top political philosophers at the time to illustrate what a government should look like in order to juxtapose that with the system the signers found themselves in. The Constitution is then an attempt to apply those concepts to the real world. The Constitution is the codified version of the philosophy articulated in The Declaration.
It could be argued that the history of the United States has been a constant retooling of the Constitution to better reflect the heart of the Declaration. Afterall, the self-evident, unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness possessed by all equally created men has had a much too narrow application, even into today.
The Declaration specifically claims, (referencing John Locke) that the security of those rights is the role of government. Governments derive “… their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Government comes into existence to secure our rights and that only happens through our consent.
As my wife will tell you, I could speak for days on this subject. One immediate question though is if the government requires our consent to function, how do we the people give our consent? The immediate response is that you give consent by being a citizen. For most of us, the moment you’re born, you gave consent. Somehow. There are ways of maintaining consent though, the easiest examples being voting, and the public discourse permitted by the 1st amendment. The ability for citizens to vote and comment on policy without undue burden or retribution is therefore an essential requirement, a necessary feature of a government.
Now we come to the focus of today’s column. With this established concept of political consent, who is permitted to consent?
For example, those under the age of 18. I referenced earlier to consent at birth but really guardians essentially consent for the child until the arbitrary age of 18 when immediately and mystically an individual obtains the agency of consent. For pragmatic and developmental reasons, the consent of minors is restricted until that point. Minors aren’t the only restricted group.
In 47 states, Illinois included, there are now proposed laws to limit who can give consent, the most popular examples coming out of Georgia. If you work long hours, have childcare concerns, or might get thirsty standing in a line for hours, some are trying to restrict your ability to give consent. Unsurprisingly these attempts disproportionality hinder low income and non-white areas.
When athletes try to champion causes, they are told that’s not their place. They can vote but how dare they offer comment on policy. They aren’t politicians so they should shut up and play ball.
Entertainers and media figures receive a similar criticism. Because they have a larger audience than the average person, if they try to exercise their consent through public comment, they are told it’s not their place.
Corporations, which are somehow people, on the other hand can comment all they want, especially through donation. That is, until those recent Georgia laws. Now even corporations are being told to shut their mouths, but importantly not their pocketbooks.
So, who is left with unthreatened consent? Remember, by this country’s founding logic if the people cannot consent, there is no government. Put another way, a government’s laws don’t apply to someone who cannot give consent.
