Mediaboss Marketing

West Scranton residents Mary Clare Kingsley and her younger sister, Jane Duffy Shrive, grew up in a large Irish Catholic family that instilled values of resilience, determination and love for family first.

Kingsley, the eldest of nine children of Clarence Duffy and the late Mary C. Duffy, and Shrive, the middle child, said they developed a bond closer than most siblings because their clan always was in it together to get by.

So it made sense that the longtime members of the Society of Irish Women stepped up to be co-presidents together this year. Theyll celebrate this milestone theyre the first pair of sisters to helm the group of about 100 in a year during the societys 19th annual St. Patricks Day dinner celebration Friday.

Kingsley and Shrive also revel in how the group lined up Hillary Clinton as keynote speaker. The sisters hoped to bring in the former Secretary of State and presidential candidate for the event, which they always attended with their mother before she died in 2011. They believe the former first lady embodies many of the qualities they learned at their parents knees, not least of all because Clintons father, the late Hugh Rodham, also grew up in Scranton.

I just think it was wonderful growing up in a big family. We didnt have a lot, but we valued everything we had. We shared a lot, but it never mattered to us, because we were happy, Shrive said. Thats why we wanted a woman who would portray giving, being a good person and being all about her family. Every time I think about it, I think about my mom smiling down on us and how proud shed be.

Were hoping (Clinton is) going to inspire ... and unite us. After all, our group is an organization that tries to bring women to the forefront, Kingsley agreed. She made me believe that a woman can do anything. I think she can bring a lot back to our area to make women feel important, do what they need to do and be proud of it.

Evie Rafalko McNulty, mistress of ceremonies for Fridays event, is a founding member of the society and sent a letter to Clinton every year inviting her to the dinner. The Lackawanna County recorder of deeds said she feels psyched to finally have Clinton there, an accomplishment McNulty attributed to Shrive and Kingsleys dedicated work.

They secured the appearance in large part through the efforts of Scranton resident Virginia McGregor, an ardent Clinton supporter who hosted fundraisers in her Green Ridge home during Clintons presidential campaign. McGregor will offer a few remarks and introduce Clinton at the dinner.

Im thrilled and so honored that Mary Clare and Jane included me on this important, historic night, McGregor said. Im very much looking forward to it. It is important to note that no one else with NEPA roots has achieved what (Clinton) has (being) first lady, a U.S. senator, Secretary of State and nominee of a major party for president. During all that, she advocated for peace in Ireland and women and children throughout the world. All of those accomplishments are worth celebrating. She has made us all very proud.

A formal invitation went to Clinton in December, and she accepted in late January, though it remained secret among just a handful of society members until Feb. 22 while they worked out the logistics to handle what they correctly foresaw as the greatest call for tickets the group ever had.

We wanted to have (Clinton) share her courage and resilience and dedication to women and this country, Kingsley said. Women have had to fight for everything theyve gotten: for positions, for salaries, everything.

Past dinners have drawn presidential candidates, sitting vice presidents and other national speakers, McNulty noted, and things happen for a reason. We could use a boost of (Clinton). Like the co-presidents, she expects to Clintons remarks to dazzle dinner guests.

(Clinton) is what most women and young women aspire to be: a strong, determined woman, McNulty said. Shes just the epitome of grace. She has taken a blow that is being felt worldwide and still risen above and shined above (it) and taught us to move on.

Nov. 8 (Election Day) wasnt the end of the world. Shes got a couple thousand friends here to have dinner with. I just want her to feel at home. Shell give an inspiring speech, there is no doubt of that. Im hoping in the middle of it all, we can have a couple laughs, and in the next journey of her life, Scranton will be on her mind.

And while Clinton certainly marks a highlight of the night, society members and guests look forward to the celebration year after year for the networking opportunities and memories it provides. Music by Greater Scranton Black Diamonds Pipe Band and soloists and chorale singers from Valley View High School set the scene for Irish revelry.

The energy is ecstatic, Kingsley said. You dont have to be Irish to be there, but youll feel like you are by the end of the night.

Her sister called it such a special night.

You leave your worries at home, theres wonderful Irish music, and everybodys happy to see each other, Shrive said. Its so uplifting.

This group is not just about meeting once a year at dinner, though, she added. We are all about giving. We do lots of fundraisers, donate and help prepare hot meals at St. Stanislaus kitchen and St. Francis (of Assisi) Kitchen. We sing at the nursing homes at Christmas and bring cookies, give socks, hats and gloves to schools, and gave out valentines for every patient at five different nursing homes.

Its a spirit of generosity and kindness Shrive and Kingsley said they owe to their dad, who always worked at least two jobs and walked both ways to each, and their mom, who stayed at home to raise their three sons and six daughters.

I was brought up in an Irish home and always celebrated St. Patricks Day, Kingsley said. Im proud to be doing this with my sister. We always went to this (dinner) with our mom, so we cherish this.

Contact the writer: pwilding@timesshamrock.com, @pwildingTT on Twitter

If you go

What: 19th annual Society of Irish Women St. Patricks Day dinner celebration featuring keynote speaker Hillary Clinton

When: Friday; cocktails start at 5:30 p.m., and dinner follows at 7

Where: Hilton Scranton and Conference Center, 100 Adams Ave.

Meet the co-presidents

Mary Clare Kingsley

At home: She is the oldest of nine children of Clarence Duffy and the late Mary C. Duffy and has been married to Gerald for 41 years. She has three children, Brian and wife, Marilyn; Kelly and husband, Luqman; and Kim, plus four grandchildren, Elias, Logan, Aidan and Sahmira.

At work: Retired after 25 years as a confidential payroll secretary in Scranton School District

Jane Duffy Shrive

At home: She is the middle of nine children of Clarence Duffy and the late Mary C. Duffy and has been married to Dennis for 34 years. She has three children, attorney Jason and wife, Jennifer; Jeff and wife, Stacey; and Eric and wife, Karlie, plus four grandchildren, Duffy, Connor, Tanner and Sophia.

At work: Special-education paraprofessional for 19 years in Scranton School District

2017 honoree

During Fridays dinner, Jefferson Twp. resident Mary Ellen Coleman also will give brief remarks after the Society of Irish Women honors her for her charitable efforts with numerous groups, including St. Josephs Center, Scranton Tomorrow, United Way of Lackawanna County and Scranton Area Foundation. In particular, Coleman focuses her energies on serving children and adults with special needs, single moms, the lonely and the less fortunate.

We honor (individuals) for their contributions to the people of this area, and she volunteers and supports so many nonprofits, society co-president Mary Clare Kingsley said. Shes a wonderful woman.

Read the original here:
Society of Irish Women ready to celebrate with Hillary Clinton as speaker - Scranton Times-Tribune

Director James Comey is sworn in before testifying at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the "Oversight of the State Department" in Washington U.S. July 7, 2016. REUTERS/Gary Cameron

Do you remember how you felt last October after you heard that FBI Director James Comey was reopening the FBIs investigation into Hillary Clintons possible illegal handling of classified communiqus while Secretary of Statejust 11 days before the presidential election?

That news, which left me with a sinking feeling that all but erased the confidence I had in Clintons prospects after the three presidential debates, was the moment that Donald Trump won the election, according to an analysis released this week by a data firm that tracks the psychological elements below patterns of consumer behavior, moods and sentiment.

Many Americansand particularly those of us working in data-driven businesseswould like to see a credible, fact-based explanation for why the polls seemed to indicate a Clinton victory, but the election instead produced President Trump, wrote Brad Fay, an executive with Engagement Labs, in the Huffington Post. Fay notes that pollsters were not all wrong, as Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. But I do believe it was possible to show that the possibility of a Trump victory was rising more rapidly in the final week than opinion pollsand related prediction modelsshowed.

Fay said his firms behavior-tracking model found what many voters and analysts have suspected, that Comeys October surprise was the tipping point that turned voter sentiment away from Clintonbecause people inclined to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt lost their enthusiasm, just as Comeys announcement buoyed Trump voters.

We are using a survey to measure behavior rather than opinion data, Fay explained. Although it is not our main line of business, every four years since 2008, we have added a few special questions to pick up the daily conversation about presidential candidates during the General Election campaign. Only after Election Day last year did we go back to see what the data showed, and it was startling. The first thing to know is that people were talking very negatively about both Trump and Clinton, in contrast to the mostly positive conversations we see for products and brands.

While both candidates were always firmly in negative territory, Clinton nevertheless enjoyed a persistent lead over Trump that opened up after the first debate, he said. Both candidates experienced significant drops in the immediate aftermath of the infamous audio recording of Billy Bush and Donald Trump [boasting of sexual assaults], although Clinton still had the advantage.

But then came Comeys unprecedented interference in the election, which registered on a much deeper level than the political polls were probing, Fay said.

Immediately afterward, there was a 17-point drop in net sentiment for Clinton, and an 11-point rise for Trump, enough for the two candidates to switch places in the rankings, with Clinton in more negative territory than Trump, he said. At a time when opinion polling showed perhaps a 2-point decline in the margin for Clinton, this conversation data suggests a 28-point change in the word of mouth standings. The change in word of mouth favorability metric was stunning, and much greater than the traditional opinion polling revealed.

Based on this finding, it is our conclusion that the Comey letter, 11 days before the election, was the precipitating event behind Clintons loss, despite the letter being effectively retracted less than a week later, Fay continued. In such a close election, there may have been dozens of factors whose absence would have reversed the outcome, such as the influence campaign of the Russian government as detailed by U.S. intelligence services. But the sudden change in the political conversation after the Comey letter suggests it was the single, most indispensable factor in the surprise election result.

His analysis noted that traditional polling does not take into account how people often react en masse: behavior predicts behavior, the invisible offline conversation matters and humans are a herding species.

Its not that traditional political polls arent to be trusted, but rather that they expect people to act more rationally than is the case in reality; in other words, they put too much stock in believing what those polled say and too little stock in tracing what those polled may do.

Political consultants and commercial marketers alike have relied on a model that presumes voters and consumers act according to rational, individual choices that they can express and explain, Fay said. What we are learning is that emotion and peer influence play much bigger roles in influencing behavior than previously understood.

Fays takeaway is not just that the FBI directors interference single-handedly tipped the election away from Clinton and to Trump, but also that if you experienced that announcement as a gut-punch moment, you werent aloneand your political instincts were correct.

See the rest here:
FBI Director James Comey's 'October Surprise' doomed Hillary Clinton's candidacy: analysis - Raw Story

Street vendors selling anti-Trump buttons stand on Fifth Avenue near Trump Tower.

Tamara Beckwith

TAMPA The 2015 Opening Day lineup for Double-A Trenton...

While campaigning to be president of the United States, Donald Trump promised to create jobs. But this is probably not what he had in mind.

Liberal New Yorkers are making bank selling anti-Trump merchandise at protests. And theyre suddenly not as upset over Hillarys Clintons loss.

I voted for Hillary, but Im almost happy that Trump won, said Manhattanite Paul Rossen, 55, Its given me a new economic opportunity.

Rossen is a player in the citys new protest economy one of several vendors who show up at marches and demonstrations hawking hats, shirts, flags and other resistance-chic accoutrements. He even sells his self-made buttons, which depict the president as a pile of feces and Adolf Hitler, on Fifth Avenue across from Trump Tower.

And it can be a lucrative hustle. Rossen said that he has grossed $1,000 during a single day. He began selling the buttons before the election and admitted, I thought it would end once Hillary won.

Another self-employed vendor, Sharon John, told The Post, I sold 500 anti-Trump buttons in just one day at the Womens March [in January]. This past Wednesday the 60-year-old set up a table peddling flags, pussy hats and Not My President badges at the International Womens Day strike in Washington Square Park.

Six months ago, however, John was making money off the candidate she voted for: Hillary Clinton. The Harlem resident hopped on a Greyhound bus and followed [Clinton] to towns in Virginia and Chapel Hill and Charlotte [in North Carolina] selling merch.

Still, neither politician has proven as lucrative a bet as Johns top mover. I made $7,000 selling [Pope Francis] things in three days, she said of the pontiffs 2015 visit to New York City.

During Januarys Womens March, chain stores even got in on the political action, with electronics retailer Best Buy selling portable phone chargers outside of its Fifth Avenue store, located on the march route.

Also reaping the benefits of the Trump administration is John Carney, 59, of Manhattan. An out-of-work media consultant, he makes ends meet by engaging in what he calls entrepreneurial activism. Carney uses Photoshop and the Face Swap app to create high-concept anti-Trump buttons. One, riffing on a Stalin-era Soviet propaganda poster, shows Trump as a baby being hoisted up by Putin.

Generally, the merchants spend about 50 cents per button then sell them for $5 a pop.

Theres nothing wrong with capitalism, said Rossen.

And hes not above selling his soul, should the opportunity arise: If Trumps supporters wanted to buy buttons favoring him, I would sell those.

Go here to read the rest:
These Hillary fans are suddenly thrilled with the Trump bump - New York Post

Baskets full of deplorables unmoved by massive advertising expenditures

The 2016 presidential election was, by almost any measure, unconventional and unique. The Democrats unfathomable decision to run Hillary Clinton, a woman whose deep and abiding unpopularity among many Americans goes back to the 1990s and HillaryCarean antipathy that resurfaced when ObamaCare became the focus of the Obama administration, will go down in history as a world-class blunder.

A new study of the usefulness and effectiveness of advertising in presidential campaigns addresses the unique nature of the 2016 presidential election and offers insight into the catastrophic failure of the Democrats generally and of Hillary in particular.

The Wesleyan Media Project reports:

The 2016 presidential campaign broke the mold when it comes to patterns of political advertising.

. . . . The article published in The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics (open access throughmid-April 2017)shows that the presidential race featured far less advertising than the previous cycle, a huge imbalance in the number of ads across candidates, and one candidate who almost ignored discussions of policy. . . . The authors share lessons about advertising in the 2016 campaign, and argue that its seeming lack of effectiveness may owe to the unusual nature of the presidential campaign with one nonconventional candidate and the other using an unconventional message strategy.

Furthermore, the authors demonstrate that:

1) Clintons unexpected losses came in states in which she failed to air ads until the last week.

2) Clintons message was devoid of policy discussions in a way not seen in the previous four presidential contests.

Other big lessons drawn in the paper include:

You can read the full study here.

What strikes me about this study is that it essentially supports the findings of the gender-reversed presidential debate experiment that Kemberlee blogged about. The general feeling among the left that Hillary was better than she was simply because she is a woman seeps into advertising outcomes as well.

Clintons focus not on policy or her fitness for the highest office in the land was subsumed by her barrage of attacks on Trump and on his basket of deplorables supporters. The negativity, however, was all but missed by her supporters, but it drowned out anything remotely positive about her potential presidency for everyone else.

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

In fact, the study found that more than 60 percent of Clintons ads focused on personally attacking Trump and his fitness for the White House rather than the policy differences between the two candidates. Trump, on the other hand, focused more than 70 percent of his ads on the policy differences between him and his opponent, while only spending about 10 percent of advertising time on personally attacking Clinton.

To put that in perspective, each major presidential candidate of the previous four presidential elections going back to 2000 with the exception of Sen. John McCain in 2008 focused at least 60 percent of their advertising on drawing policy contrasts with their opponent.

Clinton outspent Trump in advertising by $116 million in June of 2016, and in the final weeks of the race, when Trumps team unleashed an ad blitz primarily in rustbelt states, outspent him by $2.1 million, and her national spots aired almost two and a half times as often as Trumps did.

None of it mattered, however. This studys authors suggest that the results were anomalous and dont indicate that a new trend in political advertising is warranted. Maybe. Yet the result seems to indicate instead that having a clear message that resonates with the people will carry one far further than an impressive war chest and massive outputs in advertising for a flawed candidate with no message.

Excerpt from:
Study: Hillary's Advertising Spending Couldn't Offset Lack of Resonating Message - legal Insurrection (blog)

The Twenty-fifth Amendment (Amendment XXV) to the United States Constitution deals with succession to the Presidency and establishes procedures both for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, as well as responding to Presidential disabilities. It supersedes the ambiguous wording of Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution, which does not expressly state whether the Vice President becomes the President or Acting President if the President dies, resigns, is removed from office or is otherwise unable to discharge the powers of the presidency.[1] The Twenty-fifth Amendment was adopted on February 10, 1967.[2]

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.[3]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution states:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

That clause was unclear regarding Presidential succession and inability; it did not state who had the power to declare a President incapacitated.[1] Also, it did not provide a mechanism for filling a Vice Presidential vacancy prior to the next Presidential election. The vagueness of this clause caused difficulties many times before the Twenty-fifth Amendment's adoption:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower attempted to clarify procedures through a signed agreement with Vice President Richard Nixon, drafted by Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr.. However, this agreement did not have the authority of a constitutional amendment.[9]

All of these incidents made it evident that clearer guidelines were needed.[1] There were two proposals for providing those guidelines.

In 1963, Senator Kenneth Keating of New York proposed a Constitutional amendment which would have enabled Congress to enact legislation providing for how to determine when a President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office", rather than, as the Twenty-fifth Amendment does, having the Constitution so provide.[10] This proposal was based upon a recommendation of the American Bar Association in 1960.[11]

The text of the proposal read:[12]

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the said office shall devolve on the Vice President. In case of the inability of the President to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the said powers and duties shall devolve on the Vice President, until the inability be removed. The Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then be President, or, in case of inability, act as President, and such officer shall be or act as President accordingly, until a President shall be elected or, in case of inability, until the inability shall be earlier removed. The commencement and termination of any inability shall be determined by such method as Congress shall by law provide.

Senators raised concerns that the Congress could either abuse such authority[13] or neglect to enact any such legislation after the adoption of this proposal.[14]Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, a long-time advocate for addressing the disability question, spearheaded the effort until he died of a heart attack on August 10, 1963.[15][16] Senator Keating was defeated in the 1964 election, but Senator Roman Hruska of Nebraska took up Keating's cause as a new member of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments.[9]

The assassination of John F. Kennedy showed the need for a clear way for determining presidential disability in the context of the Cold War.[17] The new President, Lyndon B. Johnson, had once suffered a heart attack,[18] and the next two people in line for the presidency were the 71-year-old Speaker of the House John McCormack,[17][19] and the 86-year-old Senate President pro tempore Carl Hayden.[17][19] Senator Birch Bayh succeeded Kefauver as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments and set about advocating for a detailed amendment dealing with presidential disability.[17]

On January 6, 1965, Senator Birch Bayh proposed S. J. Res. 1 in the Senate and Representative Emanuel Celler (Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee) proposed H. J. Res. 1 in the House of Representatives. Their proposal specified the process by which a President could be declared "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office", thereby making the Vice President an Acting President, and how the President could regain the powers of his office. Also, their proposal provided a way to fill a vacancy in the office of Vice President before the next presidential election. This was as opposed to the KeatingKefauver proposal, which neither provided for filling a vacancy in the office of Vice President prior to the next presidential election nor provided a process for determining presidential disability. In 1964, the American Bar Association endorsed the type of proposal which Bayh and Celler advocated.[20] On January 28, 1965, President Johnson endorsed S. J. Res. 1 in a statement to Congress.[9] Their proposal received bipartisan support.[21]

On February 19, the Senate passed the amendment, but the House passed a different version of the amendment on April 13. On April 22, it was returned to the Senate with revisions.[9] There were four areas of disagreement between the House and Senate versions:

On July 6, after a conference committee ironed out differences between the versions,[22] the final version of the amendment was passed by both Houses of the Congress and presented to the states for ratification.[23]

The Congress proposed the Twenty-fifth Amendment on July 6, 1965, and the amendment was ratified by the following states:[2]

The following states have not ratified the amendment:

Just six days after its submission, Nebraska and Wisconsin were the first states to ratify the amendment. On February 10, 1967, Minnesota and Nevada were the 37th and 38th states to ratify, respectively. On February 23, 1967, in a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, General Services Administrator Lawson Knott certified the amendment's adoption.

Section 1 codified the "Tyler Precedent" regarding when a President is removed from office, dies, or resigns. In any of these situations, the Vice President immediately becomes President.

Prior to the Twenty-fifth Amendment's adoption, a Vice Presidential vacancy remained until the start of the next presidential term. The Vice Presidency has been vacant several times due to death, resignation, or succession to the Presidency. Often these vacancies lasted for several years.

Under Section 2, whenever there is a vacancy in the office of Vice President, the President nominates a successor who becomes Vice President if confirmed by a majority vote of both Houses of the Congress.

Section 3 provides that when the President transmits a written declaration to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, stating that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the Presidency, and until the President sends another written declaration to the aforementioned officers declaring himself able to resume discharging those powers and duties, the Vice President discharges those powers and duties as Acting President.

Section 4 is the only part of the amendment that has never been invoked.[25] It allows the Vice President, together with a "majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide", to declare the President "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" by submitting a written declaration to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. As with Section 3, the Vice President would become Acting President.

Section 4 is meant to be invoked should the President's incapacitation prevent him from discharging his duties, but he is unable or unwilling to provide the written declaration called for by Section 3. The President may resume exercising the Presidential duties by sending a written declaration to the President pro tempore and the Speaker of the House.

Should the Vice President and Cabinet believe the President is still "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office", they may within four days of the President's declaration submit another declaration that the President is incapacitated. If not already in session, the Congress must then assemble within 48 hours. The Congress has 21 days to decide the issue. If within the 21 days two-thirds of each house of Congress vote that the President is incapacitated, the Vice President would "continue" to be Acting President. Should the Congress resolve the issue in favor of the President, or make no decision within the 21 days allotted, then the President would "resume" discharging the powers and duties of his office. The use of the words "continue" and "resume" imply that the Vice President remains Acting President while Congress deliberates.

However, the President may again submit a written declaration of recovery to the President pro tempore and the Speaker of the House. That declaration could be responded to by the Acting President and the Cabinet in the same way as stated earlier. The specified 21-day Congressional procedure would start again.

The Twenty-fifth Amendment has been invoked six times since its ratification. The first three times were applications of Sections 1 and 2 in the context of scandals surrounding the Nixon Administration. The latter three were applications of Section 3 in connection to the President's undergoing a medical procedure requiring general anesthesia.

On October 12, 1973, following Vice President Spiro Agnew's resignation two days earlier, President Richard Nixon nominated Representative Gerald Ford of Michigan to succeed Agnew as Vice President.

The United States Senate voted 923 to confirm Ford on November 27 and, on December 6, the House of Representatives did the same by a vote of 38735. Ford was sworn in later that day before a joint session of the United States Congress.[26]

President Richard Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974, resulting in Vice President Gerald Ford succeeding to the office of President.[27] Gerald Ford is the only person ever to be Vice President, and later President, without being elected to either office.[28]

When Gerald Ford became President, the office of Vice President became vacant. On August 20, 1974, after considering Melvin Laird and George H. W. Bush, President Ford nominated former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller to be the new vice president.

On December 10, 1974, Rockefeller was confirmed 907 by the Senate. On December 19, 1974, Rockefeller was confirmed 287128 by the House and sworn into office later that day in the Senate chamber.[26]

On July 12, 1985, President Ronald Reagan underwent a colonoscopy, during which a pre-cancerous lesion called a villous adenoma was discovered. Upon being told by his physician (Dr. Edward Cattow) that he could undergo surgery immediately or in two to three weeks, Reagan elected to have it removed immediately.

That afternoon, Reagan consulted with White House counsel Fred Fielding by telephone, debating whether to invoke the amendment and, if so, whether such a transfer would set an undesirable precedent. Fielding and White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan recommended that Reagan transfer power and two letters doing so were drafted: the first letter specifically invoked Section 3 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment; the second only mentioned that Reagan was mindful of this provision. At 10:32a.m. on July 13, Reagan signed the second letter and ordered its delivery to the appropriate officers as required under the amendment.[29]

Books such as The President Has Been Shot: Confusion, Disability and the 25th Amendment, by Herbert Abrams, and Reagan's autobiography, An American Life, argue President Reagan's intent to transfer power to Vice President Bush was clear. Fielding himself adds:

I personally know he did intend to invoke the amendment, and he conveyed that to all of his staff and it was conveyed to the VP as well as the President of the Senate. He was also very firm in his wish not to create a precedent binding his successor.

On June 29, 2002, President George W. Bush underwent a colonoscopy and chose to invoke Section 3 of the amendment, temporarily transferring his powers to Vice President Dick Cheney. The medical procedure began at 7:09a.m. EDT and ended at 7:29a.m. EDT. Bush woke up twenty minutes later, but did not resume his presidential powers and duties until 9:24a.m. EDT after the president's doctor, Richard Tubb, conducted an overall examination. Tubb said he recommended the additional time to make sure the sedative had no aftereffects. Unlike Reagan's 1985 letter, Bush's 2002 letter specifically cited Section 3 as the authority for the transfer of power.[29]

On July 21, 2007, President Bush again invoked Section 3 in response to having to undergo a colonoscopy, temporarily transferring his powers to Vice President Cheney. President Bush invoked Section 3 at 7:16a.m. EDT. He reclaimed his powers at 9:21a.m. EDT. As happened in 2002, Bush specifically cited Section 3 when he transferred the Presidential powers to the Vice President and when he reclaimed those powers.[29]

There are two documented instances in which invocation of Section 4 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment was considered, both of which involved the 40th President of the United States, Ronald Reagan.

Following the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981, Vice President George H. W. Bush did not assume the presidential powers and duties as Acting President. Reagan was unable to invoke Section 3, because he was in surgery. Bush did not invoke Section 4, because he was on a plane returning from Texas. Reagan was out of surgery by the time Bush arrived in Washington.[30] In 1995, Birch Bayh, the primary sponsor of the amendment in the Senate, wrote that Section 4 should have been invoked.[31]

Upon becoming the White House Chief of Staff in 1987, Howard Baker was advised by his predecessor's staff to be prepared for a possible invocation of the Twenty-fifth Amendment[32] due to Reagan's perceived laziness and ineptitude.[33][34]

According to the PBS program American Experience,

What Baker's transition team was told by Donald Regan's staff that weekend shocked them. Reagan was "inattentive, inept", and "lazy", and Baker should be prepared to invoke the 25th Amendment to relieve him of his duties.

Reagan biographer Edmund Morris stated in an interview aired on the program,

The incoming Baker people all decided to have a meeting with him on Monday, their first official meeting with the President, and to cluster around the table in the Cabinet room and watch him very, very closely to see how he behaved, to see if he was indeed losing his mental grip.

Morris went on to explain,

Reagan who was, of course, completely unaware that they were launching a death watch on him, came in stimulated by the press of all these new people and performed splendidly. At the end of the meeting, they figuratively threw up their hands realizing he was in perfect command of himself.[33][34]

Read more:
Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia