Archive for the ‘Fifth Amendment’ Category

ACLU issues requests in memo probe – The Inter-Mountain

ELKINS The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia has filed an additional five Freedom of Information Act requests as part of its investigation into a memorandum issued by former Elkins Police Chief Craig Cross that called drug dealers cockroaches and encouraged profiling and violence.

FOIA requests were sent Wednesday to the Randolph County Prosecuting Attorneys Office, the Randolph County Sheriffs Office, the West Virginia State Police, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and to Gary L. Johnson, of the Administrative Office of the Courts in Charleston.

The ACLU is seeking documents from Prosecuting Attorney Michael Parker including, a list of all arrests made during Cross tenure as police chief, a list of all criminal charges during Cross tenure, a list of all assets seized during Cross tenure, a list of complaints against the Elkins Police Department, any and all communications or documents containing the word cockroach, and several other documents.

From the sheriffs office, West Virginia State Police and Morriseys office, the ACLU is seeking complaints filed against EPD, closed investigations on the Elkins Police Department, documents relating to the Watson house on Kerens Avenue, procedural documents, internal and external documents using the word cockroach, and several other documents.

From the Administrative Office of the Courts, the ACLU is seeking complaints against the Elkins Police Department during or after Cross tenure, actions taken by the office, and documents and communications relating to the cockroach memo.

This is the second round of FOIA requests sent by the ACLU of West Virginia. The first FOIA request about Cross memorandum was sent to the Elkins Police Department at the end of February.

In the memo, Cross wrote, in part, If you see any suspected cockroach walking around OUR town with a big a- knife or backpack or hoodie on with the hood up I want them stopped and identified, you know what I want them harassed if you know they are a cockroach. I want people stopped and checked out! PUT THE FEAR BACK INTO THESE COCKROACHES! Stomp cockroach a- if needed! YOUR (sic) COPS AND AS LONG AS YOU WEAR THAT PATCH ON YOUR SHOULDER THIS IS YOUR TOWN! WE WILL EITHER MAKE PEOPLE RESPECT US OR FEAR US, PREFERRABLY BOTH!!!!

Joseph Cohen, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, said the memo was a clear violation of the Fourth and Fifth amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures of property and protects against arbitrary arrest. The Fifth amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids double jeopardy and protects against self-incrimination, as well as requiring due process of law.

The memo is absolutely shocking, Cohen said. It shows a police chief that totally disregards any concern for due process. It shows a department that is completely unconcerned with the constitutional limitations on searches and seizures. It shows a culture of dehumanizing people based on where they live or how they dress.

To the Elkins Police Department, suspects are not human. They are cockroaches, Cohen added. The chief encouraged the use of violence to intimidate and harass people. Why would anyone in Elkins have faith in the criminal justice system? The police department clearly was not an impartial arbiter of the law.

By issuing the memo, Cohen said Cross has put the city and county legal system in peril.

The chief not only would seem to have encouraged the violations of (the) rights of citizens, repeatedly, he also jeopardized any prosecutions that were handled under his leadership by flaunting the requirements of the Constitution, the state ACLU chief said.

Cross resigned as chief in January, but stayed on as first sergeant until he resigned from that position on Feb. 6. Cross took over the department in April 2015.

J.C. Raffety is serving as interim chief until a permanent selection can be made.

MARTINSBURG Molly Jo Delgado, who stands accused of two counts of murder and one count of arson, appeared for ...

MARTINSBURG Residents gathered at a health care town hall meeting with U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., in ...

MARTINSBURG Attention will be paid to West Virginia teachers, according to Gov. Jim Justice. Speaking ...

ELKINS A felony child abuse charge against a Randolph County man has been dismissed in Randolph County ...

Original post:
ACLU issues requests in memo probe - The Inter-Mountain

ACLU issues five more FOIA requests in Cross memo probe – The Inter-Mountain

ELKINS The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia has filed an additional five Freedom of Information Act requests as part of its investigation into a memorandum issued by former Elkins Police Chief Craig Cross that called drug dealers cockroaches and encouraged profiling and violence.

FOIA requests were sent Wednesday to the Randolph County Prosecuting Attorneys Office, the Randolph County Sheriffs Office, the West Virginia State Police, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and to Gary L. Johnson, of the Administrative Office of the Courts in Charleston.

The ACLU is seeking documents from Prosecuting Attorney Michael Parker including, a list of all arrests made during Cross tenure as police chief, a list of all criminal charges during Cross tenure, a list of all assets seized during Cross tenure; a list of complaints against the Elkins Police Department, any and all communications or documents containing the word cockroach, and several other documents.

From the sheriffs office, West Virginia State Police and Morriseys office, the ACLU is seeking complaints filed again EPD, closed investigations on the Elkins Police Department, documents relating to the Watson house on Kerens Avenue, procedural documents, internal and external documents using the word cockroach, and several other documents.

From the Administrative Office of the Courts, the ACLU is seeking complaints against the Elkins Police Department during or after Cross tenure, actions taken by the office, and documents and communications relating to the cockroach memo.

This is the second round of FOIA requests sent by the ACLU of West Virginia. The first FOIA request about Cross memorandum was sent to the Elkins Police Department at the end of February.

In the memo, Cross wrote, in part, If you see any suspected cockroach walking around OUR town with a big a- knife or backpack or hoodie on with the hood up I want them stopped and identified, you know what I want them harassed if you know they are a cockroach. I want people stopped and checked out! PUT THE FEAR BACK INTO THESE COCKROACHES! Stomp cockroach a- if needed! YOUR (sic) COPS AND AS LONG AS YOU WEAR THAT PATCH ON YOUR SHOULDER THIS IS YOUR TOWN! WE WILL EITHER MAKE PEOPLE RESPECT US OR FEAR US, PREFERRABLY BOTH!!!!

Joseph Cohen, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, said the memo was a clear violation of the Fourth and Fifth amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures of property and protects against arbitrary arrest. The Fifth amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids double jeopardy and protects against self-incrimination, as well as requiring due process of law.

The memo is absolutely shocking, Cohen said. It shows a police chief that totally disregards any concern for due process. It shows a department that is completely unconcerned with the constitutional limitations on searches and seizures. It shows a culture of dehumanizing people based on where they live or how they dress.

To the Elkins Police Department, suspects are not human. They are cockroaches, Cohen added. The chief encouraged the use of violence to intimidate and harass people. Why would anyone in Elkins have faith in the criminal justice system? The police department clearly was not an impartial arbiter of the law.

By issuing the memo, Cohen said Cross has put the city and county legal system in peril.

The chief not only would seem to have encouraged the violations of (the) rights of citizens, repeatedly, he also jeopardized any prosecutions that were handled under his leadership by flaunting the requirements of the Constitution, the state ACLU chief said.

Cross resigned as chief in January, but stayed on as first sergeant until he resigned from that position on Feb. 6. Cross took over the department in April 2015.

J.C. Raffety is serving as interim chief until a permanent selection can be made.

ELKINS Local Womens Aid in Crisis representatives addressed the issue of human trafficking at Legislative ...

WHEELING West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice challenged state lawmakers to meet five hours each day on West ...

WEIRTON The City of Weirton is continuing its battle against drug use in the community, enacting a new criminal ...

Continue reading here:
ACLU issues five more FOIA requests in Cross memo probe - The Inter-Mountain

SEC accuses Heinz security guard of insider trading – Chicago Tribune

A security guard for a board member of H.J. Heinz Co. traded on secret information he learned through his job, U.S. securities regulators charged Wednesday.

The Securities and Exchange Commission said Todd David Alpert, of Kingston, Pennsylvania, traded in Heinz stock and options before the company's 2013 announcement that it was being bought by an investment group led by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

"During the course of Alpert's work for the board member and his family, Alpert reported almost daily to the board member's home in New York, where he served as a dispatcher" in a security booth, the SEC said in its complaint. He was also "involved in various aspects of the personal day-to-day lives of the board member and the board member's family."

The agency said Alpert made $44,000 by buying 1,000 Heinz shares and 30 call options before the announcement and then selling on the day the deal was publicized. The unidentified director had been on the board of the company for "several years."

The complaint said Alpert asserted his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination when he was questioned by the SEC, and that he is now unemployed. The identity of his lawyer couldn't be immediately determined.

In 2015, Buffett and 3G Capital Inc. orchestrated the $55 billion merger of Heinz and Kraft Foods to form Kraft Heinz Co. It has dual headquarters in Chicago and Pittsburgh.

Go here to read the rest:
SEC accuses Heinz security guard of insider trading - Chicago Tribune

Brrrr… Fest season hits A-town – Athens NEWS

Prepare yourselves, Athens residents and Ohio University students: Spring fest season is here.

Although it may not feel much like spring yet with snow showers and relatively cold temperatures forecast for this week, Friday and Saturday mark the first of a series of street parties in Athens student neighborhoods, as well as other organized fests and events, that take place almost until graduation weekend April 28-29.

Mill Fest this Saturday on Mill Street will be preceded the previous evening by the smaller Milliron Fest, at the Milliron Street apartment complexes. The fest schedule for this year, posted on the Fests of Athens, OH Facebook page, follows:

Friday-Saturday, March 17-18: Milliron and Mill fests, respectively

Friday, March 24: Congo Fest (presumably on Congress Street).

Saturday, March 25: High Fest on High Street.

Friday through Sunday, March 31-April 2: MILF Fest (not really a fest but rather a ribald phrasing for OU Moms Weekend).

Friday-Saturday, April 7-8: Palmer Place and Palmer fests, respectively.

Saturday, April 22: Number Fest, a college music festival outside Athens city limits.

Of all the street-fest events, Mill, High and Palmer fests are the biggies.

Typically, dozens of people are arrested during each spring festival, usually for underage drinking, public urination and/or public intoxication. This year, OUs Student Senate passed a resolution agreeing to reimburse student residents on fest streets for half the cost of obtaining a portable restroom if they choose to rent one for their apartment. Its an effort by Student Senate to reduce the number of students charged with public urination.

Athens Police Chief Tom Pyle said that nothing is changing this year with his departments philosophy for policing the fests. Since the change from quarters to semesters, police have become more aggressive about shutting down loud house parties on the fest streets, which has meant most street fests in recent years have been shut down by 4 or 5 p.m. Previously, the fests tended to run until late into the night, sometimes with violent and destructive results.

We close down the parties based on behavior. To say we are shutting them down earlier is kind of misleading, Pyle said. Actually, we are just responding to repeated offenses over a period of time. In the past several years those repeated offenses peak around 4 p.m. after several hours of drinking and warnings, so that is when we start shutting down parties for violations of nuisance-party laws. I dont see that changing; it is kind of inculcated now with the attendees and hosts.

The fests of the modern era are still wild, but dont bear much resemblance to spring fests of OUs past. For a period of time leading up until the late 1980s, OU held an officially sanctioned Springfest event annually with tons of beer trucked onto campus. Local, regional and national musical acts performed on a big outdoor stage (set up on the Mill Street intramural fields next to the Hocking River) playing for free before thousands of students and community members.

Simultaneous to Springfest, student tenants living in the nearby Stewart/Palmer/Mill Street neighborhood held porch parties before, during and after the event. Once Springfest was retired (as a result of the drinking age rising from 19 to 21) in 1988, those individual house parties evolved into the big block parties that continue today.

In the early years of Palmer and the other fests, when they did run late into the evening, conflict between partiers and police occasionally happened, with street fires, bottles and cans flung at police and fire personnel, and multiple arrests. In 2012, a house caught on fire during Palmer Fest (it was considered an arson at the time).

In terms of tips for student partiers, Pyle said that the best way to avoid getting your party shut down is to keep control of it.

Keep noise to a minimum and respect your neighbors. Keep litter cleaned up both during and after the party, Pyle shared from an APD FAQ. Keep your guests on your property; dont let them wander into the neighbors property. Dont let anyone leave with an open container. Dont allow underage persons to consume or possess alcohol at your party.

Dont allow anyone to throw items beyond your property line. Dont allow crazy or off-the-hook behavior at your party. Ask belligerent guests to leave; dont hesitate to summon police for help.

BELOW ARE some general tips from the kind-hearted folks at The Athens NEWS, who have all been there, believe it or not (this reporter is a 2014 OU grad himself, and Editor Terry Smith goes all the way back to the annual OU spring musical festivals of the early to mid 70s):

DO NOT carry an open container onto the sidewalk or street. Just dont do it. Similarly, try not to urinate in public.

Be wary of undercover liquor agents at fests and scattered throughout the town, especially outside gas stations and stores that sell alcohol, and parking lot entrances to student housing. Sometimes theyre fairly obvious old, bearded guys eyeing everyone suspiciously but other times theyre not. These officers can be very aggressive, so dont mess with them.

If a police officer approaches you on private property and you have an open container of alcohol but are underage, do not provide them with your ID unless you want to be arrested. You have a Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate yourself. You MUST provide the officer with your name and home address, however.

Know where your alcohol is coming from; Kegs are cool, but pour your drink yourself, and always try to ask whats in the jungle juice.

See original here:
Brrrr... Fest season hits A-town - Athens NEWS

Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution – Wikipedia

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