Talk:Tina Smith/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2017

Looks like a mistake on wikipedia page. It says she won't run on wikipedia page but the reference (Reuters) says she will run. Nicholas Karlson (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Photos from 2014

I would suggest this photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Minnesota_Lt._Governor_Tina_Smith.jpg from a 2014 campaign stop be re-added to the article to replace the current photo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tina_Smith#/media/File:2014TinaSmithLtGovMN.jpg) in the 2014 campaign rally. The wiki commons photo looks like it got deleted out of this article at some point. It seems more appropriate for the campaign section because it actually depicts a campaign event, instead of a random headshot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmillerz (talk • contribs) 01:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I agree that the photo from the campaign rally in Egan (now re-inserted) is a better campaign event representation. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2 or 3, 2018

Did Smith become a US Senator on January 2 or 3? Note she resigned as Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota at mid-night. GoodDay (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

January 3. See Article VI of the US Constitution, as well as this: https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/7da27969-4bc1-4966-9197-92e6c9e7eb46.pdf and this: https://www.senate.gov/senators/AppointedSenators.htm -- you'll see a senator is "qualified" only when he or she takes the oath. Also, this is anecdotal, but VP Pence referred to Smith as "senator-designate" before he administered the oath. ConnectedEquality (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. I may be wrong about this, but from the appointment letter it is suggested that Smith was appointed by the governor on January 2, 2018 (https://mn.gov/governor/blog/?id=322676). Also, note that senator Tim Scott from South Carolina assumed office on January 2, 2013, after having been appointed that date, even though he, too, took the oath of office on January 3. It is perfectly possible that Governor Dayton appointed her starting on January 3, but it is also clearly possible for a senator to formally assume office before taking the oath.

Smith wasn't officially a Senator until 12noon ET/11am CT when she was sworn in by the Vice President of the United States. She could not do anything official (i.e. vote) until she was sworn in. Corky 22:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

According to his resignation letter, Franken resigned at 1 pm on January 2 (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/al-franken-resignation-letter-minnesota/) which leaves open the possibility that the appointment of Smith took effect on January 2 although she may have not been allowed to vote before the swearing-in. There is technically nothing strange with this, since both senators Schatz and Scott assumed office as senators one day before they were sworn in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.173.92 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you are all missing the point. She may have assumed the office of U.S. Senator on January 2, but she didn't become a U.S. Senator until January 3. There is no dispute (see the links I cited above) that a member of Congress must take the oath of office before they can act in their official capacity as a senator. "Assuming" a role is VERY different than BECOMING a role. For all intents and purposes, I could "assume" the role of town mayor if the town's mayor dies, but that doesn't mean I've actually BECOME the town's mayor.ConnectedEquality (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Good point. As a matter of consequentiality, should we not agree that we should either change the "assumed office" date of Tina Smith to January 2, since we apply the appointment date for Senator Brian Schatz and Senator Tim Scott, or alternatively propose to push the "assumed office" dates for the latter senators one day in order for them to coincide with their swearing-in? Seniority in the Senate is determined by the date of appointment, regardless of when the swearing-in happened, but I agree this is a separate question from formally assuming office with voting rights. I will not insist on the matter either way, but it seems wrong to apply the logic differently to the same phenomenon for different senators.

It seems to me that she should be considered a Senator from January 2, but that's my WP:OR. The external sources are unclear:

• The Biography of the United States Congress (http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S001203) is unclear. It says she was appointed and that she took the oath on January 3.
• Article VI of the constitution only states that "Senators… shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." That says nothin about when service starts. Why even mention it here?
• 2 U.S.C. § 21: "The oath of office shall be administered by the President of the Senate to each Senator who shall be elected, previous to his taking his seat." This sounds like a required ceremony but not synonymous with the beginning of service.
• The CRS document cited above is also unclear.
• When does/did her salary begin?

—GoldRingChip 21:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It also seems that her resignation as Lieutenant Governor is irrelevant as it does not legally conflict with the qualifications of being a Senator.—GoldRingChip 12:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 1atinasmith 2.jpg
• Tina-smith-mike-pence main.jpg.webp

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Electric cars

Where do you think electric power comes from? Mostly coal. Think 74.51.182.96 (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)