After reminding readers of “certain unalienable rights” that all human beings possess—including “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”—the Declaration of Independence explains “that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

This passage highlights foundational moral-political principles that the purpose of government is to “secure” the individual, equal natural rights of citizens—that is, the individuals who consent to establish a government and maintain that government once it becomes operational.

Rather than asserting that kings and other government officials hold power by divine right, hereditary privilege, or mere superior force and violence, the Declaration asserts that for a government to be morally legitimate, it must be authorized by the consent of those who are governed. Any government that exercises power over people without their consent is a morally illegitimate government.

Active, voluntary consent is important in two ways: In creating a government and maintaining a government.

The first meaning of consent—people agreeing to create or form a new government—is evident in the first sentence of the United States Constitution: “We the people of the United States… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The second meaning of consent—citizens giving their permission (or withholding their permission) for what those in government have been doing and plan to do in the future—is evident in frequent elections held at regular, lawful, publicly-known intervals.

Influenced by Enlightenment thinkers—particularly John Locke—this concept emphasizes that citizens enter into a social contract, or an agreement, with each other to form a government for the purpose of protecting the inherent, unalienable rights of each citizen.

This arrangement means that a government’s “just powers” are limited to those powers necessary for safeguarding these rights. If a government exercises powers to which the people have not freely consented, or if a government fails to protect the basic liberties and property rights of citizens, it is no longer a legitimate government

When the Declaration was written and adopted by the Second Continental Congress, this idea that consent is necessary for political legitimacy directly challenged monarchical rule and the widespread European belief that it was legitimate for a king to rule without the consent of his subjects because God (allegedly) bestowed legitimacy on the king.

The American revolutionaries-turned-founders disagreed. They argued that a legitimate government must rest on the popular sovereignty of the people: the notion that ultimate political power remains with the citizens themselves. When the people withdraw their consent—when, for instance, a government becomes tyrannical or ineffective at protecting the individual rights of citizens—the people always retain the natural right to alter or abolish that government and consent to establish a new one that is better designed to protect their natural liberty and private property.

Thus, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” underscores the Declaration’s central theme: A legitimate government must protect the individual rights of citizens and remain accountable to the citizens from whom it claims its authority. If any government fails in these duties, the people possess the moral and political authority to revoke their consent and seek a form of governance aligned with their inherent, unalienable natural rights.