Biden autopen signature

[Jeff]

Hmmmm, news coming out that all of his EO's and pardons were most likely signed with autopen, making them void.

The only thing he signed was his letter dropping out of the race.

[mowens]

I think you've been missing some posts.

[Jeff]

I think you've been missing some posts.

Where?

[Bucky Cornstarch]

Source?

[Jeff]

Source?

Google it.

[Incogneeto]

Source?

Say "Please"

[Bucky Cornstarch]

Google it.

I did, and came up with the usual right wing outrage sites that are so successful at triggering feeble minded individuals such as yourself.

[Jeff]

I did, and came up with the usual right wing outrage sites that are so successful at triggering feeble minded individuals such as yourself.

All the while dismissing it because it can't possibly be true.... right?
Everything the conservatives uncover is always a lie in the eyes of a dumbsmit.

[mowens]

Where?

https://mastercamforums.com/forum/index.php/topic,4414.msg85767.html#msg85767

[SuperHoneyBadger]

https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1082&context=lawpub

On May 26, 2011, only hours before three provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act were scheduled to expire, Congress passed an extension. For days, the White House had someone ready to fly to Europe with the legislation in hand for the President to sign, but Congress had been tardy. It seemed quite important to the White House that none of these provisions lapse for any length of time, even the relatively short time it would take to fly from Washington to France. With this urgency as a backdrop, the President was awakened at 5:45 a.m. Central European Time so he could authorize a first: phone a White House staffer in Washington, D.C., and instruct him to use an autopen to sign the bill. No President had ever had anyone else sign on his behalf, and certainly no President had ever ordered the use of an autopen to inscribe his signature on a bill when away from the White House. This Article explores multiple facets of the President's use of a proxy signature to sign legislation. The state of the law surrounding proxy signatures has remained amazingly constant through both English and American history. The proxy and the principal must be present together when a proxy signature is utilized for a high-value transaction. This was the rock-solid law when the constitution was written. No one seems focused on the presence requirement: not the President, nor the Republican House members who complained to the President, nor the numerous legal commentators and scholars that we have heard from since the autopen signing occurred. The use of the autopen, itself unproblematic, seems to have eclipsed the more important issue of whether the president was present when it was used. By definition, if a non-presence proxy signature is affixed to a bill, then time is of the essence. When time is of the essence, the consequences of a voided signature are never greater. Since the President has roughly twelve days to sign a bill, a non-presence proxy signature could produce one of two unintended consequences. At best, it would produce a twelve-day period during which the new legislation would not be in effect. At worst, if Congress is not in session at the end of the twelve-day period, it would amount to a pocket veto. Neither case is consistent with well-ordered government. In sum, the President's use of the autopen (or even a human being) to sign a bill outside of the President's presence is unconstitutional. This establishes a dangerous precedent, one which every thinking lawyer in Washington politics seemed to have overlooked. Let the autopen episode not be a precedent for this or any other President to follow. The Constitution does not allow for shortcuts.

Autopen is no longer a centuries old way of saving time and the President's wrist. It's a tool to manipulate the law and policy to the favour of the sitting admin. Also see below to compare the mettle of two men:

In 2005, George W. Bush was the first president to enquire with the Department of Justice if it was constitutional for the president to sign a bill using the autopen. Though he received the dispensation, he didn't actually use the autopen, nor did he have the bill flown to him by courier, preferring instead, in one notable case, to rush from Texas to Washington to sign the controversial Terri Schiavo bill. The Palm Sunday Compromise, as it was colloquially known, allowed the federal court to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo, on life support, who was caught in a tug of war between her husband, who wished to remove the feeding tube, and her parents who contested the decision. Likely, because of the life-and-death nature of the bill, Bush opted to forgo the dispensation.

[Incogneeto]

Where?

It was Incog. He was like a week ahead of you.

Don't feel Bad .

I'm usually a month ahead of Neuro.

[neurosis]

I'm usually a month ahead of Neuro.

When it comes to conservative rage bait, you're probably a lot further ahead of me than that.   

[Incogneeto]

When it comes to conservative rage bait, you're probably a lot further ahead of me than that.   

That was good.

[YoDoug]

IMO this issue is a waste of time. Whether or not Pardons can be reversed is just a distraction from what DOGE and Trump are doing to gut the federal bureaucracy. Any executive action that may have been signed with autopen can be reversed be executive action.

[CNCAppsJames]

IMO this issue is a waste of time. Whether or not Pardons can be reversed is just a distraction from what DOGE and Trump are doing to gut the federal bureaucracy. Any executive action that may have been signed with autopen can be reversed be executive action.

Isn't the main issue now the pardons not the EO's?

I haven't been paying as much attention as I usually do to the news for the last week or so. Been busy with work unlike Brokeback Bucky.