What’s more, rather than rights coming from the government, government exists to protect rights. Government, in the declaration’s explanation, exists to protect rights, and rather than subjects enjoying rights with the consent of the government, the government itself rules only by the consent of the governed. And when the government fails to live up to its duties, and the people no longer consent to it, it becomes illegitimate and subject to replacement by something the people like better.

As Dan Himmelfarb noted in The Yale Law Journal25 years ago, not much contemporary attention is paid to this. I’m sufficiently cynical to think that the lack of attention isn’t an accident, but rather a consequence of not wanting to address the questions that the declaration’s second sentence raises, which bode poorly for our ruling class.

Does our government now have, as its principal function, the protection of people’s rights? Or is it more of a giant wealth-transfer machine, benefiting the connected at the expense of the outsiders? And, most important, does our government enjoy the consent of the governed?