Hence, pro-life people always think that Roe V Wade was not based on the constitution, whereas pro-choicers can't imagine reading the constitution any other way. The LGBTQ(etc.) community thinks that the right of a man to marry a man is all but spelled out in the constitution, whereas anyone who opposes gay marriage can't imagine finding any legitimate grounds for the legalization of the practice in the same source. Similarly, LBTQ+ can't fathom the notion that anyone could read the constitution after desegregation and find any grounds for allowing a baker to refuse service to a gay man for his wedding. The list goes on. Pick any decision, and you'll find this born out: people always see what they want to see.
Hey, I totally see why conservatives don't want gay marriage, contraception and abortion legal anywhere. But regardless of what position you take, you must be willing to admit that the arguments of the SCOTUS for these cases are based entirely on the constitution. Roe V Wade was argued mainly from the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Obergefell V Hodges (the big gay marriage decision) was argued mainly from the Equal Protection, (which happens to be the adjacent clause in the 14th). Griswold V Connecticut? Well, that was argued again, through the 14th.
Now your average pro-life and pro-marriage American would stop me right there saying, "Show me where the 14th Amendment uses the word 'abortion' or 'marriage', and then we'll talk about how it doesn't follow from the constitution." This is the sort of person that, when faced with a SCOTUS decision that he doesn't like, will accuse the court of legislating from the bench, or he will accuse the court of adding words to the constitution, of offering dictionary definitions instead of legal applications, et cetera. (Sound familiar?) For example, as the sometimes-rather-annoying-and-grossly-overrated-blogger Matt Walsh so aptly put it, "There isn’t even a pretense of constitutional interpretation anymore." (See this post.) Now I highly doubt that Matt Walsh read the majority opinion, and if he already did, he has serious comprehension issues, because the argument for the decision was all about the constitution. (The syllabus in question is available here, by the way.) Fact is, the 14th amendment makes every liberty whatever into a qualified constitutional right; the 9th guards against thinking that all of the enforceable rights are spelled out in the constitution. It doesn't matter that abortion, contraception, gay marriage, etc. aren't explicitly contained in the constitution. They can be protected by the constitution anyways.
Governments do not derive their authority from the consent of the governed. The US government isn't legitimate because we signed some invisible contract... It's legitimate because of human nature. My primary intent here is to show that consent is unnecessary for legitimacy.
First in this order is to clarify what is meant by “necessity”. There are two sorts, hypothetical and absolute. Hypothetical necessity is what is meant when we say, “a heartbeat is necessary for an animal to be healthy,” whereas absolute necessity is what is meant when we say, “Triangles necessarily have internal angles equal to two rights.” In absolute necessity, the principle necessarily produces the effect; in hypothetical necessity, the principle is necessary for the effect but does not always produce it.
That the consent of the governed is absolutely necessary for the legitimate authority of government can easily be dismissed, for then a government could legitimately promulgate an unjust law. Injustice is never legitimate.
Nor can a legitimacy of a government require the consent of the individuals through hypothetical necessity. Were this true, any individual could waltz into a nation whose government he thought to be unjust and break laws at will without the government being able to legitimately stop him! One might retort that the majority has given consent and that this is sufficient, but this would be to posit that Democracy (which is a government type) has legitimate authority ipso facto.
It follows then that if any government has legitimate authority, it is not through the consent of the governed.
And yes, governments can have legitimate authority. Human nature proves this, for we are naturally social animals, but every society must be organized, and a government is a necessary principle of the organization of a society.
noun | au·thor | \ ˈȯ-thər \