I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the concept of “consent of the governed.” English political philosopher John Locke was the first to articulate the concept, describing it as a foundation for legitimate government. Locke’s writings on the subject profoundly influenced early Americans like Thomas Jefferson, leading to these immortal words in the Declaration of Independence:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

As I look at what is going around my home in Minneapolis, I have to ask: Does anyone really think that the Trump administration can claim to have the consent of the governed? Recent national polls have shown an overwhelming disapproval of the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement. If elections were held today, Minnesotans would likely select a new governor far more liberal than Tim Walz, and Minneapolitans would almost certainly select a mayor far more combative towards law enforcement than Jacob Fry.

I realize that we’re not yet to the level of Minnesotans abandoning their “Minnesota Nice” upbringing long enough to overthrow the federal government. But we are moving slowly and steadily in that direction. With every escalation from the feds, the Trump administration loses a little more of the consent from which their power derives.

Trump and his cronies need to realize that they are losing consent. If not, then it is the right of “we the people” to alter or abolish the current administration.