"In response to an invitation by President Jimmy Carter to the American Academy of Neurology in May 1994, James F. Toole, neurologist, and Arthur S. Link, biographer of Woodrow Wilson, established the Working Group on Presidential Disability whose members include medical doctors, politicians, and former administration members. This book represents the papers and discussions of the Working Group, as well as its final report on and recommendations for determining how and when the Twenty-Fifth Amendment is to be used. The findings and deliberations of the Working Group were issued in a set of nine recommendations for the effective use of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, which are included in this book, along with commentary on the recommendations."--BOOK JACKET.

Ask the average American who takes over in the event something happens to the President of the United States, and you’re likely to receive the correct answer. However, what about succession beyond the vice presidency? Fortunately, our nation has an established line of presidential succession that is meant to ensure continuity in the nation’s highest office. Unfortunately, there are several fundamental flaws in the model. This work begins by examining the fascinating history of presidential disability and succession, an issue that has impacted our nation’s highest office since the very beginning. After highlighting the reoccurring nature of this problem, it then provides an analysis of the alarming state of our current disability and succession guidelines, many of which are dangerously outdated, especially when it comes to the threat of terrorism. It then explores these flaws, specifically the glaring problems associated with including members of Congress in the line of succession. Along with questions concerning suitability and preparedness, statistics detailing the partisan composition of Congress over the last half-century illustrate that a sudden shift in party control of the presidency is not only possible, but likely. Finally, it concludes by highlighting an inherent flaw in a line of succession in which every member is located in one small area that happens to be the most attractive target for a would-be terrorist. While the issues explored in this work have been present for more than a half-century, the combination of an increased partisan divide between the executive and legislative branches, as well as the dangers of terrorist attack, combine to require immediate action. Just as the average American may be surprised to discover the Speaker of the House stands second in the line of succession, they would likely be shocked at the potential for chaos and confusion that could unfold in a battle for the presidency. Therefore, it is vitally important to address these concerns now, before they play out in front of a national audience.

Provides historical background on the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which deals with the role of the vice president in the event the president becomes incapacitated, draws from primary and secondary sources to look at how the amendment has been tested in the courts, and examines related controversies and debates.

Considers constitutional amendments and legislation to provide for the orderly devolution upon the Vice President of Presidential powers and duties if the President is unable to discharge them, and a resumption by the President upon the passing of his inability.

Politics, law and medicine come together in any analysis of presidential disability. Constitutional questions arise in the interpretation and implementation of the Twenty-fifth Amendment. For these reasons, the Miller Center turned to a group of outstanding medical, legal and political authorities to broaden and deepen understanding on presidential disability. Contributors: Senator Birch E. Bayh, Jr.; Kenneth R. Crispell, M.D.; Paul B. Stephan III; C. Knight Aldrich, M.D.; Norman J. Knorr, M.D.; Daniel Harrington, M.D.; James F. Childress and Kenneth W. Thompson. The "Report of the Miller Center Commission on Presidential Disability and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment" is included as an annex. Co-published with the Miller Center of Public Affairs.

Presidents have claimed popular mandates for more than 150 years. How can they make such claims when surveys show that voters are uninformed about the issues? In this groundbreaking book, Patricia Conley argues that mandates are not mere statements of fact about the preferences of voters. By examining election outcomes from the politicians' viewpoint, Conley uncovers the inferences and strategies—the politics—that translate those outcomes into the national policy agenda. Presidents claim mandates, Conley shows, only when they can mobilize voters and members of Congress to make a major policy change: the margin of victory, the voting behavior of specific groups, and the composition of Congress all affect their decisions. Using data on elections since 1828 and case studies from Truman to Clinton, she demonstrates that it is possible to accurately predict which presidents will ask for major policy changes at the start of their term. Ultimately, she provides a new understanding of the concept of mandates by changing how we think about the relationship between elections and policy-making.

Papers on Presidential Disability and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment describes the formation, efforts, and conclusions of the Miller Center Commission on Presidential Disability and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment--the fourth national commission organized by the Center that advances the ideas on the national improvement of the presidency. Orginally, the group met to advise the Center on the necessity and feasibility of a study of presidential disability, and Commission participants were primarily physicians whose expertise were in medical questions and medical issues. As the study progressed, however, the Commission expanded to include legislators, social scientists, and policy makers who explored a wide range of issues and problems. The book is divided into four sections and an appendix. The first section details the formation of the commission, the preliminary meetings in Washington, D.C., and the subsequent proposals for the study. The second section provides an overview of the role of the presidential physician and describes the burden of conflicting loyalties--to the patient and to the country--he must face. The definition and determination of "inability to serve" is also debated by both medical and political experts. Related to this discussion is the use of medications and treatments that may impair presidential decision-making abilities. The third section is a series of interviews and correspondence with prominent medical, legal, and political authorities. Topics discussed include: the coordination of law enforcement and national defense in the event of an attack on the president, changes in legal arrangements, the role of Congress during presidential disability, procedures for military command succession, and competing interpretations and reports are provided in the fourth section. They serve as examples of the analyses that took place prior to the formation of the Commission. Included in this section is a memorandum that foretells the differences in thinking between the original medical group that b

In presidential elections, do voters cast their ballots for the candidates whose platform and positions best match their own? Or is the race for president of the United States come down largely to who runs the most effective campaign? It’s a question those who study elections have been considering for years with no clear resolution. In The Timeline of Presidential Elections, Robert S. Erikson and Christopher Wlezien reveal for the first time how both factors come into play. Erikson and Wlezien have amassed data from close to two thousand national polls covering every presidential election from 1952 to 2008, allowing them to see how outcomes take shape over the course of an election year. Polls from the beginning of the year, they show, have virtually no predictive power. By mid-April, when the candidates have been identified and matched in pollsters’ trial heats, preferences have come into focus—and predicted the winner in eleven of the fifteen elections. But a similar process of forming favorites takes place in the last six months, during which voters’ intentions change only gradually, with particular events—including presidential debates—rarely resulting in dramatic change. Ultimately, Erikson and Wlezien show that it is through campaigns that voters are made aware of—or not made aware of—fundamental factors like candidates’ policy positions that determine which ticket will get their votes. In other words, fundamentals matter, but only because of campaigns. Timely and compelling, this book will force us to rethink our assumptions about presidential elections.

This report, which is included as an annex in Papers on Presidential Disability and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment by Six Medical, Legal and Political Authorities, is also available separately. It summarizes the conclusions of the study. Co-published with the Miller Center of Public Affairs