Talk:Ron Barber

Swearing in =/= assumption of office

Members elected in special elections immediately assume office, the swearing in is a formality. For a detailed exlanation check Talk:Marlin Stutzman. The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress of course confirms this for other special election victors. Hekerui (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to instigate debate here, but if memory serves me, I don't think a Congressman (or any federal officeholder, for that matter) can go about performing the official duties of office until administration of the oath, since the Constitution requires an oath mandating members of Congress to support it. Whether or not this constitutes entering office, I suppose, is in the eyes of the beholder. At any rate, I don't see it making much of a difference, in this case at least, since the House doesn't go back into session until next Tuesday (the apparent date that Barber will be sworn-in, which depends, I think, on the time the Office of the Clerk receives Barber's credentials/certificate of election). Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to regular general election winners the constitution mandates when office is assumed, regardless of oath. They all do one (or an affirmation) of course, but January 3 is still the date even if the oath is later. Hekerui (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(Please note: this reply is not to instigate debate, but for scholarly discussion and genuine curiosity) I realize that the new term generally begins at the expiration of the old, but it's my understanding that a Representative or Senator cannot formally execute his/her official duties until the oath is administered. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

ACA vote

User:Cfredkin recently added a sentence about Barber's vote in May 2013 not to overturn the ACA. The user has been adding this or similar language to many articles about politicians. I reverted it here and at several other articles as a trivial vote, because the same issue has come before the House more than 40 times, and the individual politician's vote on this one was not determinative. I felt this kind of item was particularly inappropriate here, when it became the ONLY vote listed in Barber's article. On other articles, where there was already a listing of the person's positions or votes and this vote was placed in context, I have not reverted it. Cfredkin promptly reverted my reversion (although per WP:BRD they should have left my reversion in place and come to the talk page). Rather than getting into an edit war I am bringing the issue here for discussion. Is it appropriate for the "Tenure" section to list only one vote, and that on a proposed-to-death bill on which his vote did not make any difference? Cfredkin claims it has significance because it was mentioned by a "reliable source", but that "reliable source" was merely reporting a potboiler press release from the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the only reference to a vote that demonstrates the Representative's stance on the ACA in the article. It was significant enough to be referenced by reliable secondary sources. The fact that the issue has been voted on multiple times also attests to its significance. However I obviously don't think it would be appropriate to record all 40+ votes in the article. The fact that it's the only content in the Tenure section is irrelevant. Something would have to be first, and it doesn't preclude other content from being added.CFredkin (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed alternative to Murphy bill?

I read once somewhere that Barber had proposed an enlightened alternative to the mental health Murphy bill currently being legislated, would be nice if someone could track it down and post its highlights (I will do if I find time.) Historian932 (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)