A asked my 2301 a random vague question designed to stir thoughts about consent and how it impacts governmental institutions through periodic elections -- such as the one we're about to have.
Some reactions from my end:
- The decision to offer, or not offer, consent is strictly voluntary -- assuming you have the right to vote. Voter turnout may be a reflection of which group wishes to offer consent or not. Studies of voter turnout suggest that people are more likely to turnout to vote when they do not consent to existing policy rather if they do consent. Intensity matters.
- The system of separated powers -- with its various term lengths and means of gaining office -- allows the public different degrees of consent depending on the office. We can only offer consent on a regular basis to what the House of Representatives does. While voters might be motivated to oppose policies proposed by Obama, that opposition cannot -- purposely -- be directed at him because his term of office allows him to skip this election out. The framers of the Constitution wanted the president to have a longer time frame to accomplish objectives before being held out for evaluation. In addition, the public has a limited opportunity (one-third at a time) to offer consent to what the Senate does.
- We might want to discuss why the people have no opportunity to offer consent to the actions of the national judiciary. Lifetime tenure was meant to provide judges and justices strength and independence. The people seemingly have no role to play in their decisions. This isn't entirely true since the courts respond to cases brought to them by the public, and the public can always exercise consent or opposition to the actions of the judiciary through the legislative and, to a lesser degree, executive branches. While the courts interpret the law, the law is subject to modification.
To Be Continued ....
