“Consent of the governed” is the concept that the legitimacy to impose state political power over the members of a society is subject to the consent of the people. In theory, the idea is sound and seems reasonable. In practice, though, it gets a bit messy. At what point can “consent” be claimed? Consensus? Approval by a simple majority? An overwhelming (defined as ???) majority? Universal acceptance by all members of the society? The extent of power granted to government, too, is open to question. Even if all the members of a society were willing to accept/give consent to a government demand that everyone stop breathing for five consecutive minutes, the “willing consent” of the people probably would be judged to be coercive or otherwise unnatural and, therefore, not given of free will. In the event that a majority of the people give their consent, must people in the minority simply acquiesce to the wishes of the majority? How must dissent be treated? An enormous number of questions emerge when considering the practical consequences of relying on the concept of “consent of the governed” to justify a government’s moral authority to act on behalf of the governed.
+++
The temporary ruling to pause implementation of the SNAP program, issued late yesterday by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, surprised me. It wasn’t the ruling that surprised me so much as it was who issued it. My immediate reaction was that the liberal minority of Supreme Court justices (of which Justice Jackson is a member) had shrunk even more with her decision to “support” the administration’s emergency request. But I cannot say I fully understand the processes used by the Supreme Court in deciding such cases. Though I am relatively sure Justice Jackson does not condone the suspension of SNAP benefits, I suspect she made her ruling with an expectation that an appeals court will give a more thorough (and possibly a more favorable) and lasting ruling. Laws become as complex and as contradictory as we allow them to be. I am in favor of requiring the “consent of the governed,” though at times I might be willing to consent to progressive, caring, authoritarian rule. Increasingly, my consent to be governed is given grudgingly. Frequently, it is not actually given, either, but lent. Too often, my consent is assumed when, in fact, it is released without my approval and without even a shred of cooperation on my part. That is, over my objections to its release. Unwilling consent may be the proper term.
+++
Once again, my night was interrupted, off and on, by brief periods of sleep. Between those periods, I experienced an episode in which I woke in frigid, perspiration-drenched sheets, made bearable by covering the bottom sheet with a beach towel. I gritted my teeth and coped with a cold, damp top sheet. I do not know the cause of this second experience of its kind in a relatively short period of time. My most recent chemo treatment was a week ago; I doubt chemo is to blame; at least fully. Whatever the cause, I want it to stop. Immediately.
+++
