[RoosterRedux]

Here's what I found at the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel:

Whether the President May Sign a Bill by Directing That His Signature Be Affixed to It

Date of Issuance: July 7, 2005

Headnotes The President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law. Rather, the President may sign a bill within the meaning of Article I, Section 7 by directing a subordinate to affix the President’s signature to such a bill, for example by autopen.

Source: justice.gov

[cgbg]

“directing a subordinate”

OK—but where is the proof that the subordinate had been directed to sign in a specific instance.

The details are critical here.

[Ann Archy]

well, OKAY, then....no more stories about this being invalid.

[DiogenesLamp]

President may sign a bill within the meaning of Article I, Section 7 by directing a subordinate to affix the President’s signature to such a bill, for example by autopen.

The Constitution does not say any such thing. That is all *OPINION* put forth by lawyers who likely never considered the current predicament where nobody knows if Biden was even aware that things were being signed in his name.

As Mike Johnson demonstrated, Biden was completely unaware that he had suspended LNG exports. He said "I didn't do that."

Someone on his staff sure did.

[Chewbarkah]

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 President’s 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.