Great piece!

You make a very important distinction between political consent and “cultural” consent or conversely, a willingness to negate customs/ traditions dating from time immemorial which a) is not necessarily what one ought to assume from the passivity of the citizenry nor b) what the citizenry would want you to assume.

Consider the disputes at the time of the American Revolution. Much discussion was had over the notion of the colonists having “consented” to various Parliamentary decrees. The Colonists sought to refutes this while the Crown?Parliaments scribes sought to confirm it. Ultimately, the American desire to “CONSERVE” their customary and traditional *rights of an Englishman* won out. Power was checked and later American designs sought to “institutionalize ” these limits on power. Law was limited not only ion scope and breadth of application but via the institutional charter(s) of the government.
Regrettably, future clever scribes used the LAW to undo it all.