A very simple bill to improve American diplomacy


If foreign service officers are worthy of respect and protection how do you square the fact that Ambassador Stevens wasn’t given any protection at all and lost his life during his service under the Obama Administration and Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State?

Got an answer for that one, oh never mind it will probably be the same as Hillary’s… “what difference does it make”.:roll_eyes: :angry:

Yeah, this is an example of obstruction of the Executive Branch and another example of how Dems are subverting the Constitution and HOR abuse of power.

You can’t make this stuff up as the House of Representatives is doing exactly what they accuse President Trump of doing with their BS load of articles of impeachment and proves the fact that libs, Dems and the MSM are always guilty themselves of what they accuse others of. It never fails. :woman_shrugging:

1 Like

Indeed. I question the Constitutionality of the proposed law. It is Congress trying to take over powers given to the Executive branch under the Constitution. The Congress has to approve if more than 30% of appointments are given to some one not in an elite group? No, these are not the heads of departments that require approval of the Senate (not the House). Congress would be extending the requirement for approving of certain appointments beyond that provided in the Constitution.
For that very reason, I can’t imagine any President not vetoing such a bill.


I am NOT taking partisan sides on this issue. This bill equally effects Republican and Democratic Presidents and is intended to equally effect Republican and Democratic Presidents. I don’t think Democrats should be appointing an excessive number of patronage picks any more than Republicans.

1 Like

Great example. I oppose the bill.

So we should put untalented people who can’t do the job in positions of influence because they’re loyal.

Recipe for success!

Great points.

If the court strikes it down or if the President vetoes it, there is another way to effect the same result in such a way that neither the courts nor the President can stop it.

The Senate can pass a “sense of the Senate” resolution stating that they will only consider patronage nominees to certain predefined posts and if the President nominates a patronage nominee to a post not on the list, they will not consider the nominee or allow the nomination to advance. The Senate has the power of advice and consent and it would be perfectly Constitutional for them to take that action and nothing the President or Courts could do to stop them.

And people that are committed to beuracacy aren’t loyal?

Seems to me you just made a case to fire all of em. :wink:

Has anyone ever paraphrased someone in this forum and it had the same meaning as the original poster gave it? I don’t think so.

The Senate can approve (for ambassadors) whomever they wish. That would be more acceptable. It would not involve the House, or a law. And each Senate session could make up their own mind.

Patronage nominees are there because they contributed or bundled tremendous amounts of money for the President’s election. Essentially, they bought and paid for their Ambassadorships.

I hope nobody here is proud of that fact.

And I hope nobody here is proud of the fact that highly qualified people are losing positions in favor of people who essentially bought and paid for a position. Bribery would be an accurate term also.

It is sad that it exists at all.

It is sadder that people want it to expand further, particularly at the expense of good people.

I will demand of any and all Presidential candidates that they appoint at least 70% of Ambassadors from the Senior Foreign Service.

And the Senate should stand up and limit patronage to its traditional level of no more than 30%.

No I was addressing Doug’s specific point and logic.

Fine. If they so choose and it seems appropriate to them under a given situation.

They should reject the bill and likely will.

1 Like

If you ever need brain surgery who would you rather have in the OR: me or Dr. Been Carson?

Hint: For the love of God, please pick Dr. Carson!!!

So, the states elect a president to safeguard their confederate interests by appointing executive branch personnel to action his federation-approved agenda, and you don’t trust their choice, so they can’t have their choice appoint personnel who will advance the agenda the states voted for. Self-important much?

That’s a lotta reading into my post there, dude…