Talk:Carte Goodwin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Start of term in infobox[edit]

I don't think he has been sworn in yet, hence he is still the senate appointee. Or am I wrong? -Marcusmax(speak) 02:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are likely wrong. The oath of office is simply ceremonial in this case, as long as he his certification papers are in order and have been presented to the senate, he should be official (24.62.126.170 (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It lists Carte Goodwin as being the "Senator-Elect" (which Goodwin quite clearly is not, due to his being appointed - but not yet sworn-in).

The Infobox should be edited to indicate that Goodwin is the "Senator-designate" or "Senator-Appointive".

72.82.166.58 (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the infobox to reflect that he is a senator-designate. Gobonobo T C 12:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. A Senator is not a Senator until he or she is "duly sworn." (United States Senate glossary: senator) I have corrected. Mrfeek (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Swearing in means little other than a formality. Yes, you need to be sworn in, but his certificate appointment is what dictates when his "term" starts, and that certificate was signed on July 16. Burris was appointed and became a senator on December 30, even though he wasn't sworn until January 2010. And newly elected members to the 111th Congress took their oaths January 6, but their terms are listed as starting January 3. We either leave it July 16 with the appropriate reference, or leave it as "TBD" until after the oath. Either way, July 20 will not be the date he is "taking office."DCmacnut<> 18:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Swearing in isn't a formality according to U.S. Senate rules, which define senators as those "duly chosen and sworn." (cf. Rule VI of the Senate Standing Rules) I know the SOS defines pay based on appointment date, but the Senate sets its own rules, and constitutionally, Senate rules trump all. (cf. Article I of the U.S. Constitution) I understand "consensus has been reached," but with all due respect, consensus is wrong in point of law. Mrfeek (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the comments in the section below. Per U.S. Senate Rules III, Senators are require one to take the oath of office "before entering upon his duties." The official senate website explains this as needing to take the oath in open session before they "begin to perform their legislative activities."[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm#3. That means they can't vote or participate in Senate debates until they are sworn, but nothing about when their "term" starts. 2 USC 36 and decades of Senate precendent makes it clear that the term/salary of appointed senators "shall commence on the day of their appointment and continue until their successors are elected and qualified." Absence any other controversy that would prevent the appointed senator from qualifing, such as holding other elective office like Kristin Gillibrand.DCmacnut<> 15:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC).DCmacnut<> 15:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this from my talk page for a wider audience.

Hi, can you please cite a source for the statement that an appointed Senator's term starts when he is appointed, not when he is sworn in? Carte Goodwin is not yet recognized as a Senator by the Secretary of the Senate, and that's the official source. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no one answer, we had extensive debates over this at the Roland Burris article and that is the concensus that has developed. We based our source on 2 USC 36, which deals with salaries of senators, official Congressional Bioguide summaries, and this document on when a senators term begins and ends. 2 USC 36 It states, in part that "Salaries of Senators appointed to fill vacancies in the Senate shall commence on the day of their appointment," which in Goodwin's case is July 16, 2010. This law was enacted in the 1930s to deal with controversies over when an appointed senators term began and when it ended (Riddick's Senate Procedure).
Senate rules also require one to take the oath of office "before they can begin to perform their legislative activities."[1] But they are still senators prior to that. There are records in the past of senators who never took the oath. Gladys Pyle was elected in a special election, and served from November 9, 1938 to January 3, 1939. Pursuant to 2 USC 36, she was a senator and received pay, but never took the oath of office since Congress was adjourned sine die.
Absent any controversies or other irregularities, it is the appointment date that dictates when appointed senators term starts. The most official source will be the certificate of appointment signed by Gov. Manchin, which Goodwin will present tomorrow when he is sworn in. The date in that document is the date we should use, and is the date the Secretary of the Senate will use based on past precedent. That document will be published in the Congressional Record and released to the public July 21.
The "absent any controversies or other irregularities" is why I've insisted on leaving this as TBD until Wednesday, but people keep insisting on putting July 20. For example:
  • Roland Burris. appointed Dec. 31, 2008. Credentials in order January 12, 2009. Took oath January 15, 2009. His "term" started Dec. 31, but his senority is from January 12, due to the controversy over his appointment.
  • Michael Bennet. appointed Jan. 21 2009, took oath January 22.
  • Kristin Gillibrand. appointed January 23, 2009, appointment effective January 26 (the day she resigned her House seat), took oath January 27, 2009.

The list of senators by seniority document describes these irregularities and puts them in context. Hope that helps.DCmacnut<> 20:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I personally think that "TBD" is poor style; if we're going to go with something like that, it should be spelled out clearly on first reference ("pending" or something of that nature). That being said, I agree with your analysis, but disagree with how it's being implemented: if the media and we all agree that his date of appointment is apparently July 16, then we should put "July 16" with a footnote explaining what you explained above. We should go with the most accurate information we can reliably source, which is that the Governor of West Virginia appointed him on July 16; in the unlikely event thatthe date on the certificate of appointment ends up being different, we can correct that on Wednesday. jæs (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. 2 USC 36 is the driving language behind what the Secretary of the Senate uses to determine when terms start, but its the SoS that is the source. The "TBD" option became sort of a poor man's compromise early on in this Congress, when you had governors announcing well before a vacancy even existed that "I will appoint so and so." In that case, editors were jumping at the bit, adding their speculation on when the vacancy would occur and wanting a specific date, so we had to improvise compromise. In this case, there was already a vacancy and we know by reliable sources when the appointment occurred. Therefore, myself and User:Rrius had made the infobox read July 16, and added a ref which said "Appointed July 16, scheduled to take the oath of office July 20." I think that statement is valid until we see the certificate of appointment, but it was always getting reverted, so I just fell back to the "TBD" option.DCmacnut<> 21:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think your most recent revision presents the information concisely and clearly. jæs (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Raprchju apparently disagrees, and revised the infobox to reflect a start date of July 20 (date of oath) instead of July 16 (presumed date of appointment). I'm noticing on Kirsten Gillibrand's article that her infobox apparently reflects the date of her taking the oath of office (January 26, as opposed to January 23). It really would be helpful if we could have some consistency, as opposed to constantly seeing this revised across (presumably) every article of every Senate appointee. Should we perhaps bring this up at WT:USC? jæs (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) This issue was debated over and over and over again back at the start of the 111th Congress when the controversy over Burris cropped up. The Senate last address the issue of appointments, special elections, terms in 1957 during a controversy over Thomas A. Wofford, who was appointed to replace Strom Thurmond (Riddick's Senate Procedure, p. 1251-52). Also, if the oath of office was the deciding factor, then Gladys Pyle would never have been a senator having never taken the oath. I see no reason to rehash it, since this issue will be resolved once and for all once the certificate of apointment is printed and the Senate updates the chronological list of senators document with the exact date. Sources indicate that it will be July 16, since that is the date Manchin said he "appointed" Goodwin. If we want to point a link to this dicussion at WP:USC that would be fine, since many other editors already debated this extensively, including Markles and Rrius. For senators elected in the normal order, the Constitution is the deciding factor. Terms start on January 3 every two years, even though oath's are typically taken later in the week because Congress rarely convenes on January 3. For the 111th Congress, it was January 6. 2 USC 36 and Senate precedent is the driving source in for appoited and special elections, since the 17th Amendment is silent on when those terms start. The service dates are manifested in the official chronological list of senators linked at Seniority in the United States Senate.

With respect to Kristin Gillibrand, she was appointed January 23. However, she was a member of the House of Representatives on the 23rd, and remained so until resigning on January 26. Article I of the Constitution says that no "Person holding any office under the United States shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office." You can't be a representaitve and a senator at the same time. Therefore, she became a senator when she resigned from the House on January 26. She took the oath January 27. George Lemieux was appointed September 9, 2009, to replace Mel Martinez. Lemieux's service started September 10, one day later the same day he took the oath. However, this is because Martinez didn't resign until the end of the day on September 9. Lemieux couldn't fill a vacancy that didn't exist, so his service started September 10. Scott Brown was elected on January 19, but his service didn't start until February 4, the day that Massachusetts certified the election. Al Franken was elected November 2008, but his service didn't start until July 7, 2009, when Minnesota certified the election. Roland Burris was appointed December 31, 2008, but the Senate said he didn't have a valid certificate of appointment until January 12, 2009. There are many more examples of dates not being consistent, including Huey Long who was elected but didn't take office for 2 years because he was still governor of Lousisina. Rush D. Holt Sr. was elected to a full term at age 29, but had to wait until he turned 30 to take office.DCmacnut<> 19:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding with regards to Senator Gillibrand. Once again, I think your analysis is very convincing. Unless someone can point out something contradicting the information you've provided, then I believe we should consider any future revisions to the date in the infobox to be based on a misunderstanding of the law and Senate policy and procedure. I'm going to put a comment in the infobox to hopefully help prevent some such revisions. (edit: Looks like you beat me to it. Hopefully folks will notice that before editing the date.) jæs (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, no need to wait for the certificate to be printed in the Record. The Senate has already definitely stated when his term started. The official chronology has already been updated and states Goodwin's "Initial Start of Senate Service" is July 16, 2010.[2]DCmacnut<> 19:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

Anybody know what Goodwin's religion is? I've attempted to locate a source, but have been unsuccessful. I'm sure that information will eventually be published, as all 99 other Senators have information about their religion, but it'd be beneficial to find a source if one exists. Gage (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Carte Goodwin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shudde (talk · contribs) 03:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently reviewing the article. I will try and finish my review promptly. - Shudde talk 03:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review

  • There is no reference for Carte's date of birth. This is a BLP — it needs to be referenced well.
  • The bio on ref [5] doesn't seem to be working.
  • This article is not broad enough in coverage. Especially regarding Goodwin's political career (which is why he is notable). I have a few suggestions here:
  • What was Goodwins role in Manchin's campaign?
  • What else did he achieve as Chief Counsel?
  • Did he achieve anything as Goodwin to a two-year term as a Commissioner of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission?
  • You never say who appointed Goodwin to the Senate seat? I'm assuming it was Manchin.
  • Be careful not to overlink.
  • "Observers suggested that Goodwin had been" - who? Also surprised more has not been written about this. Both those sources don't go into much detail.
  • Link [16] is dead.
  • "Together they have two children, a son, Wesley and a daughter, Anna" - grammar

Overall I have no choice but to fail the article because of a lack of broad coverage. There are other problems such as those mentioned above. I think there needs to be more information about his political career, achievements, views, etc. He may have been a Senator only a few months, but has been involved in politics nearly ten years. I think the prose could be improved, but it alone isn't enough to cause me to outright fail the article. As far as the WP:GACR go, criteria 4, 5, and 6 are fine. Criteria 1 should would be marginal, criteria 2 has some small problems (see above), but criteria 3 has not been met.

I hope the comments I've made are helpful, and that the article can be bought up to GA standard in the future. If you want any clarification on anything feel free to contact me on my talk page. - Shudde talk 04:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Carte Goodwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carte Goodwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carte Goodwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Information[edit]

I hope I don't ask this incorrectly. Booth Goodwin's wife, Amy, was elected the first female Mayor of Charleston, West Virginia, yesterday. Booth is Carte's cousin, does this warrant a mention? I'm sorry, but I haven't made any edits in years, and I've forgotten how. Here's the link: [1]Barefoot gal (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/kanawha_county/amy-goodwin-sworn-in-as-mayor-of-charleston/article_1ac04693-92af-5daf-bd57-adbb4734a072.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carte_Goodwin&oldid=1207327747"