Consent of the Governed? 61% say the Federal Government doesn't have it.

I know they don't have mine. I don't understand why they just don't seem to care.

Our representatives (Congress) do not have our consent, either. They keep doing as they please rather than as the people want them to do. Their approval rating overall is now about 10%. I don't approve of them either.

Using the term consent is not subjective. Do we approve of what they are doing, no? Do they have consent, 100% because we legally elected, at least, most of them. There fore they have legal consent. By law they have our consent, this is still a representative country. I guess I am suggesting that your question is using a legal term for a subjective argument. The real bottom line here is this, if we want our representatives to represent the common people then we have to tone down the Liberal, Conservative argument first and second we have to take the money for these folks to get elected out of the equation. Back in the early 2000's John McCain presented us with the idea that the add on spending on one bill would have paid for all of their elections. This would not only save the taxpayers a lot of money but we would be first in their decission making process. Our government cannot be representative of the people when our elected officials have to raise thousands of dollars a month to maintain their office. Nor can they be representative when blackmailed or unduley influenced by corperate and or special interest groups that threaten them by using huge sums of money against them.

I would not say they have consent. Nor would I say they are representing those who elected them. Representation indicates an advocacy for another, putting forth the interests of the people they represent. This Congress does not represent the people, they represent their own agendas. Expressing approval or disapproval is simply putting a response to a situation. Consent by election assumes the provision that the representative will execute the will of the people.