Comments
THE VIEW FROM HERE - The six Dem Senators were: Tim Kaine (Virginia), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire), Maggie Hassan (New Hampshire), Catherine Cortez Masto (Nevada), Jacky Rosen (Nevada), and Dick Durbin (Illinois).
Sen. Angus King from Maine (I-Maine) is an Independent; thus, he had no obligation to vote with the Democrats. Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), like Sen. Joe Manchin before him, had long ago staked out a maverick position. King’s and Fetterman’s votes left the Trump Senate six votes short of ending the Shut Down.
What is the Consent of the Governed?
The consent of the governed is basic to our founding values. The Declaration of Independence states; “That to secure these (inalienable) rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The Declaration does not explain how to determine the consent of the governed.
Who Comprise the Governed?
No US Supreme Court case defines the term “the governed.” When the Declaration asserted that all “men” have certain inalienable rights, it meant all human beings, not just males, Englishmen, or Whites. Likewise, “the governed” means everyone subject to the laws of the United States. That includes men, women, slaves, children, non-citizens, illegal aliens in the United States. Foreigners were diplomatic immunity are the exception.
How to Determine the Consent of the Governed?
Since not everyone gets to vote, voting alone cannot constitute the consent of the governed. Most elections are won by whoever obtains the most votes. In 2016, however, Hillary Clinton received the majority of the popular vote, but lost the election. In 2024, Trump received 49.8% of the vote, (77.3 million people) which was less than 50%. Kamala Harris got only 48.3% (75 million people), which is 1.5% fewer votes. In most Presidential elections, the margin between the two candidates is too small to claim the winner’s policies had “the consent of the governed.” In 2020, Biden received only 51.3% and no mandate to impose woke DEI upon the nation. It was ludicrous for Sen. John Thune to claim that Trump with less than 50% got a mandate. Because in our constitutional republic the law is supreme, winning an election does not make the winner above the law, that is, until Chief Justice John Roberts in Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), gave the President immunity to violate all criminal laws including murder. If Trump declares that you stand in the way of one of his core duties, Trump has immunity to shoot you dead.
Under what interpretation of the Declaration’s consent of the governed may the President wantonly murder people? Answer: The Unitary Executive Theory The Unitary Theory replaces the democratic republic with an all-powerful President where Congress and the Courts do whatever the President orders.
The Supreme Court has the right to decide cases, but the Court’s abuse of power can destroy a government’s legitimacy. The Declaration states: “whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, . . .” The Court’s allowing corporations to buy politicos, its authorization for ICE to use racial profiling to pretend that US Citizens are criminal aliens, its immunity for all Trump’s criminal behavior, its rubber-stamping Trumps’ stopping Food Stamps, and his stationing the US military in Dem cities are turning America into a police state.
The Emerging New Consent of the Governed
A new anti-Trump consensus was coalescing due to Trump’s arrogant excesses. Many MAGA realized Trump was against them when his Big Beautiful Bill made their health insurance unaffordable. Millions of disabled and elderly GOP will die due to Trump’s slashing Medicaid. More people in Red States needed the premium subsidies and medicaid than in Blue States. Most GOP opposed destroying law-abiding immigrant families and ripping them apart by deporting mothers and separating their children. When Trump listened to Stephen Miller’s family separation policy during Trump 1.0, there was huge blowback; yet, Trump still listens to this racist. Conservatives do not support denying Due Process in order to ship immigrants to concentration camps in El Salvador. The November 5th landslide election showed that Trump is on the skids with only 36% favorable and 62% unfavorable Everywhere the public saw Trump’s Unitary Executive in action, an overwhelming majority of Americans rejected it. After the elections, Trump acknowledged the losses and began talking about affordability. The new consent of the governed was having a positive impact.
The Grand Betrayal
Then, at the height of the national euphoria, six Dem Senators torpedoed the growing anti-Trump consensus by voting to support Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill. Their approval ended the shutdown which had become the vehicle for the emerging consensus against Trump’s policies. Overnight, these six self-righteous prigs turned Trump from Loser, Loser, Loser into Winner, Winner, Winner. The perfidy halted the emerging consent of the governed. Why? Conceit? Stupidity? Arrogance?
What Did the Nation Gain from this Betrayal?
Not one cent was restored to Medicaid, not one more person has health insurance, and Trump is refusing to issue SNAP benefits claiming that everyone must re-apply. How many months will that take? His murders in the Caribbean are non-stop. He is deploying more military in Dem cities. After months of effort by millions of Americans, the widespread new consent of the governed has been sabotaged. Who now will again put forth such herculean efforts to reject Trump’s all powerful Unitary Executive, knowing that a few self-indulgent prigs can ruin everything? Instead, attention has shifted back to the national soap opera, The Days of Jeffrey Epstein.
(Richard Lee Abrams is a former Los Angeles-based attorney, an author, and political commentator. A long-time contributor to CityWatchLA, he is known for his incisive critiques of City Hall and judicial corruption, as well as his analysis of political and constitutional issues. Abrams blends legal insight with historical and philosophical depth to challenge conventional narratives. A passionate defender of civic integrity and transparency, he aims to expose misuse of power and advocate for systemic reform in local government. You may email him at [email protected])
