Posted on 01/03/2013 2:14:50 PM PST by Lmo56
President Barack Obama's staff used an autopen (a machine that mimics one's signature) to sign the "fiscal cliff" legislation that Congress passed on New Year's Day. There was no ceremony or photo-op for the autopen bill signing.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Nobody would dispute that the President has to sign a bill for it to become law. The question isn’t whether the President must sign, the question is whether an authorized autopen signature qualifies. That is not addressed in the quoted dicta of Stevens’ line item veto ruling. You’re quoting irrelevant caselaw.
SnakeDoc
Its not his signature, its a facsimile ...
You cannot just willy-nilly decide what is constitutional - based on "permission and intent". You have to follow the law.
The law says that the President must sign - not a damn machine ...
Sold a house not long ago, and I didn’t put pen to paper at all. Everything was “signed” by a click of the computer mouse.
I’m not “willy-nilly” deciding anything. You’re making laws up that simply do not exist. There is no law regulating how, or with what implements, a President must sign a bill.
The Constitution simply says he must sign. He did. Show me any law that says that an authorized signature by a Presidential autopen isn’t an official signature. There isn’t one. It isn’t in the Constitution, or anywhere else.
This is an issue of signature techonology, not of Constitutionality. If you want to amend the Constitution to require hand-signature by ball-point pen, have at it ... but the current Constitution does not address the issue.
SnakeDoc
“any mark intended to authenticate”
if he wanted he could sign with an “X”
http://www.justice.gov/olc/2005/opinion_07072005.pdf
And when I bought my house for cash, I signed absolutely nothing. How does either story relate to the president’s constitutional duties?
Its the way of things. Judges and lawyers use automated signatures and electronic filing all the time. Just as official as pen-to-paper.
This is just a non-issue. A useless technicality, with no basis in law, that people seem to think is some kind of Constitutional ‘gotcha’.
SnakeDoc
I thought these machines were used for form letters to White House letter writers, donation requests, etc. Not for signing real legislation.
The problem with the autopen is that we're never really sure that Obama actually SAW the bill he was purported to have signed.
"Signing" presumes that he was actually there and functioning, and had actually touched the bill that he was signing.
With the autopen, he could be in a hospital with a blod clot for all we know when the bill was "signed."
Even this Wikipedia article on Autopen questions the legitimacy of using the autopen to sign legislation.
-PJ
Since the Constitution is silent on what qualifies as an “official signature”, a Court would likely consider what is deemed an “official signature” generally. Electronic signature is considered official in corporate governance, financial transactions, legal proceedings, and even legislative action.
There is no reason to think it would be ruled unofficial exclusively for the purpose of executive authority ... and thus it would be a Presidential signature for the purpose of Constitutionality.
SnakeDoc
Clearly, the article was wrong.
-PJ
I need to slow down... Sorry.
-PJ
If his signature were forged with an autopen when he was in a coma or something, that would be a Constitutional issue of forgery ... not of use of an autopen when authorized by the President himself.
He doesn’t have to see the bill, or read the bill, or touch the bill. That’s not a Constitutional requirement.
Wikipedia is wrong.
SnakeDoc
Like the way congress "SEES" a bill before they vote on it?
This time they had what? Three whole minutes to review all 143 pages between the time the bill was presented to congress and the vote?
Of course, now many companies have direct deposit, but the point is we accepted those checks for a LONG TIME.
Ever cashed a IRS refund check ?
If the anti-gun twits can say that the Second Amendment only applies to flintlock muskets, then the President must sign all legislation with a quill pen.
The rules for valid check signatures are different than the rules for signing a law.
I understand your position, but the POTUS is unique in our country in that he has the final say on whether legislation becomes the law of the land. The act of signing any contract verifies that the signer understands all the ramifications of the contract and accepts and approves of all that the contract encompass.
The POTUS is held to a much higher standard than a bank employee or a law firm partner. To say he should be treated the same greatly injures or balance of powers supposedly laid out in our constitution.
Can 2 blinks of his eye be construed as a yes if he is semi-conscious laying in intensive care, and thus authorizing legislation to become law?
should say “our balance of powers”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.