Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama's Staff Use Autopen To Sign 'Fiscal Cliff' Legislation
Weekly Standard ^ | 1/3 | Daniel Halper

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: autopen; constitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-60 last
To: Lmo56

Ball point pens also did not exist in the 18th century. Every bill since the advent of ball point pens must be unconstitutional.

Signing by an implement other than quill & ink is not a deviation from the Constitution. No amendment is required because there is no langauge in the Constitution that needs to be changed to allow signature by ball-point pen or autopen.

SnakeDoc


51 posted on 01/04/2013 8:49:56 AM PST by SnakeDoctor (Come and take it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

The case law you cited is irrelevant. The line-item veto case had nothing to do with what qualifies as a Presidential signature. You’re quoting nonbinding dicta in Stevens ruling ... and it doesn’t even make the point you wish it did.

The original intent was that the President sign a bill to confirm his consent to its passage. Obama consented, and confirmed it by authorized autopen signature. Non-issue.

Heller is also irrelevant to this matter.

SnakeDoc


52 posted on 01/04/2013 8:54:42 AM PST by SnakeDoctor (Come and take it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: wrench

>> 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?

We already have Constitutional provisions dealing with Presidential incapacity. We don’t need a novel interpretation of the signature requirement outlawing certain signature implements to deal with that scenario. That would be decided on a 25th amendment challenge to capacity, not the signature requirement.

Signature is signature. There is no question of whether Obama consented to the legislation, or Obama’s capacity to sign, or whether the signature was unauthorized or forged, or whatever. He signed it. He wanted to sign it. He had capacity to sign it. There is no question here to be answered. The founders intent with the signature requirement has been fulfilled.

SnakeDoc


53 posted on 01/04/2013 9:06:52 AM PST by SnakeDoctor (Come and take it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: reg45

>> 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.

I was under the impression that they were wrong. Do you think the 2nd Amendment only applies to flintlock muskets?

SnakeDoc


54 posted on 01/04/2013 9:11:14 AM PST by SnakeDoctor (Come and take it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

Sorry Doc, ain’t buying it. If he does not personally sign legislation in front of witnesses, it didn’t happen.

As I said, the office of the POTUS is unique in all the world, and should be treated as such, not just another legal or industry drone.


55 posted on 01/04/2013 9:23:07 AM PST by wrench (I want my country back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

>> This means that UNTIL the Constitution is amended, the meaning in the ORIGINAL text controls.

True. The original text is silent on signature implements. If you want to outlaw autopens, you need an amendment. The text doesn’t say what you seem to think it does.

Where are you going with this? What is your aim? The founders intent was that a bill be signed by the President to confirm his consent to making it law. Nobody disputes Obama’s consent. Nobody disputes authorization. Nobody disputes his capacity. Nobody disputes that he intended the bill to become law. Nobody disputes anything here. I don’t get your endgame.

What is the purpose in forcing him to put put a low-tech pen-to-paper rather than high-tech pen-to-paper? I really don’t think the founders gave a damn what he used to sign the bill so long as he consented to the bill becoming law.

SnakeDoc


56 posted on 01/04/2013 9:24:51 AM PST by SnakeDoctor (Come and take it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: wrench

Who said there were no witnesses?

SnakeDoc


57 posted on 01/04/2013 9:27:39 AM PST by SnakeDoctor (Come and take it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

Of course they are wrong. I was just presenting an analogy.

An “Auto Pen” is like a semi-automatic rifle. If Presidents can use Auto Pens, then citizens can keep and bear semi-automatic (and even automatic) rifles.


58 posted on 01/04/2013 10:32:32 AM PST by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: reg45

The argument seems better presented the other way, at least on this board ... if citizens can keep-and-bear semi-automatic rifles under the 2nd, then the President can use an autopen under the signature requirement.

Your argument is better stated that way to an anti-gun, pro-autopen audience ... like Obama himself.

The point is, technology can be fit in to Constitutional language, but it should be fit in consistently. Either the language includes technological advances for both guns and signature implements ... or it includes neither. It seems strange for a group (like The Weekly Standard) so vehemently committed to the 2nd’s inclusion of higher-tech weapons to be so vehemently opposed to the signature-requirement being fulfilled by higher-tech implements.

SnakeDoc


59 posted on 01/04/2013 11:43:21 AM PST by SnakeDoctor (Come and take it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
The rules for valid check signatures are different than the rules for signing a law.

Maybe you should tell that to Obama.

60 posted on 01/06/2013 11:57:08 AM PST by UCANSEE2 ( If you think I'm crazy, just wait until you talk to my invisible friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-60 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson