Biden's pardons are null and void

[YoDoug]

Law.
Lesser things CAN be signed by autopen, but EO's and Pardons require a "wet signature". Meaning he has to sign it himself.

And the things signed with autopen have to be done in the presence of the POTUS. There have been a few special occasions  where that wasn't the case, but those are for minor things.

Please share the law that explains this.

[neurosis]

He was not on the court.

Not on the court at that time?  He's listed in the "Former Judges" section and his term just ended in January. It doesn't surprise me that he has an opinion on this? I'd be more skeptical if he had a history of activism? 

[YoDoug]

Not on the court at that time?  He's listed in the "Former Judges" section and his term just ended in January. It doesn't surprise me that he has an opinion on this? I'd be more skeptical if he had a history of activism? 

If you are no longer on the court but you still make a ruling as if you are, wouldn't that be a clear cut case of judicial activism. He no longer had the authority to do what he did yet he felt it was ok to do it.

[Jeff]

Please share the law that explains this.

How about something from Syracuse Law back in 2012?

"The President and the Autopen: It Is Unconstitutional for Someone or Something to Sign a Bill Outside of the President's Presence"


https://surface.syr.edu/lawpub/83/

[neurosis]

He no longer had the authority to do what he did yet he felt it was ok to do it.

That part I don't know. Did he not have the authority?

I don't know if that would count as "activism". If he thinks that Trump isn't following the law, then wouldn't it be his duty to make sure that he is?

[Bucky Cornstarch]

Damn right! Don't want the libtards going after patriots!

As is the case with most things that you babble on about, you have very little understanding of what a patriot is.

[YoDoug]

How about something from Syracuse Law back in 2012?

"The President and the Autopen: It Is Unconstitutional for Someone or Something to Sign a Bill Outside of the President's Presence"


https://surface.syr.edu/lawpub/83/

Per your article, if it is in a presidents presence, it is valid to use autopen. Again as I stated before, the use of autopen is not the issue, it is whether or not you can make a sound case that Biden did not know of and approve of the pardons. 

[Jeff]

if it is in a presidents presence, it is valid to use autopen

That's what I said!

But still, it cannot be used for EO's and Pardons.

[YoDoug]

That part I don't know. Did he not have the authority?

I don't know if that would count as "activism". If he thinks that Trump isn't following the law, then wouldn't it be his duty to make sure that he is?

As part of the Alien terrorist removal panel, no he was not on the panel at the time of his ruling. As part of his authority as a federal judge, that would be where he needs to cite law or case precedence, neither of which he did. He just said it would "cause irreparable harm". If that is valid then any judge can make any ruling they want if they "feel" it would cause irreparable harm. The judiciary does not make law, they only rule on the applicability of a specific situation within existing law. If there is a law or constitutional amendment or previous case law then he should rule based on that. Otherwise he is creating activist rulings.

[YoDoug]

But still, it cannot be used for EO's and Pardons.

according to?

[YoDoug]

As Gcode said at the beginning of this thread, it will end up at the supreme court. IMO, they will likely punt and reject it as this creates a potential shit storm if it were deemed autopen was illegal

[CNCAppsJames]

As Gcode said at the beginning of this thread, it will end up at the supreme court. IMO, they will likely punt and reject it as this creates a potential shit storm if it were deemed autopen was illegal

Or at least illegal in the instance(s) in question. (Deluge of last minute pardons)

We shall see one way or the other.

[JParis]

It seems to me, without explicit words written into the Constitution, that it will ultimately be deemed "legal"...

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Is there a later clause that says "The President shall not use an autopen?

[YoDoug]

It seems to me, without explicit words written into the Constitution, that it will ultimately be deemed "legal"...

Is there a later clause that says "The President shall not use an autopen?

Exactly. This is one of those cases where advent of technology and the constitution intersect. There is very little ruling so far on the use of autopen and what is out there supports the use of it.

[Newbeeee™]

What benefit are the American people getting from the pearl clutching and hand wringing over the autopen? These pardons are a fait accompli. It's very unlikely that anything will be done about the pardons. If the autopen is really a problem then pass a law saying anything requiring a president's signature has to be done by the president with witnesses.

Yehbut....that = way less golf time!