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.
Hundreds of decisions by a President, many based on recommendations by staff.
If an autopen is not to be used, propose a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting their use.
It’s an interesting exercise for sure. But in the end, noting will come of it.
There is report from DOGE that several WH staffers and/or former staffers received payouts of millions of dollars.
Is anyone else seeing the potential (likely) problem here?
Great memories of Alan Keyes! We had the privilege of hosting him at our house when we still lived in Champaign, Illinois, when he was running for US Senate.
I read this so quickly I read it as “Biden’s autopsy...”
And, was not saddened by it.
Perhaps Congress should pass legislation that Presidential signatures on Executive Orders and pardons must be witnessed. There is ample precedence for other official documents needing witnessed signatures and in the past Presidents have often had official signing ceremonies for major legislation and Executive Orders.
It wasn’t Biden that used the autopen - it was someone else. Biden was not in the White House when it was used.
Another one of those crimes that are to big to adjudicate.
Another one of those crimes that are to big to adjudicate.
“Only the dumb ones get caught.”
I was on a Grand Jury decades ago, and I came to the same conclusion.
Thanks for presenting available facts.
“Rather, the President may sign a bill within the meaning of Article I, Section 7 by directing a subordinate to affix the Presidentās signature to such a bill, for example by autopen.”
This moves us to HOW President Biden (and Presidents before him for comparison purposes) directed “a” subordinate to affix the President’s signature to a particular document. Verbal instruction? Written instruction? Signing a list of things to be signed? By a particular person? Was such person authorized to operate the autopen/sign for the President in general, via a written document physically signed by the President?
Logically there has to be a verifiable chain of directions tied to the actual President, lest the subordinate sign things without the P’s specific knowledge and intent, or even contrary to it. The direction can’t be in an ephemeral form. I guess “verbal recorded on video” might work, but not just verbal, unrecorded phone call, etc.
Given Biden’s situation, it seems reasonable to challenge the validity and require proof of specific Presidential direction to be presented.
Why?
Start with the fact that Mike Johnson said that when he asked Biden why he had signed a EO halting all LNG exports, Biden had no idea that he had signed such an EO or why he would do it.
Start there.
Yes it Is treason if perp was using autopen in cooperation with another country.
Proving it to you and me is one thing. Proving it in a court of law is another thing altogether.
An interpretation that does not conform to the intent of the original constitutional meaning is an incorrect interpretation.
In 2005, President George W. Bush sought a DOJ opinion on whether the autopen could be used to sign bills into law. The DOJ concluded it was constitutional, but Bush never used it for this purpose.
The advisors will usually tell the ruler whatever the ruler wants to hear.
I believe the constitution already prohibits it's use when it becomes impossible to determine if the signature was the will of the president, or the will of someone who is *NOT* the president.
Itās an interesting exercise for sure. But in the end, noting will come of it.
I am long accustomed to the "brilliant" minds of our legal system, utterly screwing things up because they can't comprehend logic, cause and effect, or simple common sense. We see it all the time. "Roe" is an example. F@g marriage is another. "Anchor babies" is a third.
Absolutely. The prisons need to be overflowing with corrupt liberals who abused and sold government power to corrupt interests.
And all of those strange ideas came from the 14th Amendment, correct?
That's the excuse they used, but getting those ideas out of the 14th amendment is a deliberate twisting of it's meaning.
Indeed everyone becomes worm food
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.