Posted on 03/15/2025 12:05:43 AM PDT by 7thson
This past week, I have read online and watched on FNC the story of an Autopen used during the 4 years of Biden occupying the White House.
What I would like to see done, is to have the DoJ charge just one person that was granted immunity under the Autopen E.O. Bring up charges, start taking that person to trial. Then when the Dems start gnashing their teeth and rendering their clothes, President Trump and the DoJ can have a press brief explaining that by being signed by an autopen, all those E.O. are unConstitutional, and null and void. Let's see how this plays out.
In the mid 1970s I had two coworkers who were born during WWII.
One was from Japan.
The other was born in Nazi Germany and she said her birth certificate, as all born then, had Adolph Hitler’s signature on it. She said “I know it was a rubber stamp but it was the official one with his signature.”
Creepy.
Back in the 1990's, I used to listen a lot to Alan Keyes (that's a talking head from the past). He used to talk about how the Constitution was supposed to get us away from monarchy rule and have us be a nation of laws. The use of an Autopen - or a rubber stamped signature - is the rule of using the rulers name to get things done. Sort of like, "can someone rid me of this troublesome priest?"
I voted for him in the primary in 2000. He brought a lot of Christian character to the presidential race. And then George W. Bush who was the chosen one by the party honchos said "Christ, he changed my heart" during the Republican candidates forum and that's all it took for a lot of thoughtless evangelicals to sign onto Bush.
Keyes was the most devout Christian running in that contest. His party did its damndest to destroy his chances. And so we got eight years of Bush the Lesser.
It would have been a much better America had Alan Keyes become president.
I would think it’d depend on previous cases. I’m sure Biden isn’t the only former WH occupant (or state governor for that matter) who’s used an autopen to authorize governmental stuff.
The unauthorized users should be the ones charged.
In a sane world - it’s treason and they go away to either the gallows or prison for a long time
It will be interesting to see if the unauthorized users pardoned themselves
The King would sign a document and then a drop of wax was put on the document and the King would press his ring into the wax to indicate that the signature was truly his.
Using an autopen is akin to someone else taking the King's ring and affixing his seal to a document.
-PJ
Using an autopen is fine, if the President is physically in the room and is using the autopen simply to avoid writer’s cramp or something. But it is completely unconstitutional and void if the President is somewhere else and some other person is using the autopen to sign his name, even if the President authorized that person to do so. The reason is obvious: Without the President in the room when the autopen is used, there is no way to verify that his signature is actually being used with his consent and permission.
That’s the critical distinction that is being missed in most discussions about this.
There is always one who takes the benefit of the doubt route.
To continue, the whole point of my post is to bring awareness to the use of the AUtopen by bringing it to trial. So that it goes to the Supreme Court for a Constitutional ruling. And as someone mentioned in an answer to my original post, was Biden in the room? Like I said - pick one person of those he granted immunity to, and charge that person with a crime. Take it to the courts. Go through discovery. Put people on the stand. Explain it to the citizens through press briefings and speeches. And if it is decided it is unConstitutional at the Federal level, then it should be the same down the chain.
The Validity of the Presidents Signature Is Nothing New. I Have Several Land Grants from Presidents Buchanan and Pierce That I Thought Were Valuable, but I Was Told They Were Signed by a Staffer Signing the Presidents Signature.
I’m not a lawyer, but this is my understanding.
Under U.S. law, the autopen has been deemed a legally valid method for a president to sign documents, provided that the president has authorized its use. This was confirmed in 2005 by the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush and has been used by multiple administrations.
The key factor isn’t the physical signature but whether the president actually approved or intended to authorize the document, whether by signing it himself or approving the use of the autopen. In Biden’s case, proving or disproving that in court would be extremely difficult.
Is this a bad time to mention John Wick?
First time in history that an autopen will have its own Presidential library
Except that it is well known that he was not present at the time. It was just a simple matter of checking the dates on the documents against his travel schedule.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-pardons-signed-autopen-on-vacation-watchdog-finds
LOL
I wrote in Alan Keys in the 2008 presidential race. Wouldn’t dream of voting for RINO McCain.
I want to see ALL of them CHARGED!
No....he ACTUALLY HAD TO PHYSICALLY SIGN THEM!!
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.