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”
>> 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