[Lmo56]

His signature is affixed. By his autopen. With his permission and intent. He signed the bill.

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 ...

[SnakeDoctor]

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

[Last of the Mohicans]

Dubya had it researched by the DOJ, which concluded the use of an autopen was appropriate.

http://www.justice.gov/olc/2005/opinion_07072005.pdf