Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 11/28/2025 5:48:00 PM PST by Morgana
Donald Trump has revoked every executive order Joe Biden signed with an autopen - escalating the battle over the legitimacy of the ailing ex-president's administration.
'I am hereby canceling all executive orders, and anything else that was not directly signed by Crooked Joe Biden, because the people who operated the autopen did so illegally,' Trump wrote on Truth Social on Friday.
'Joe Biden was not involved in the autopen process and, if he says he was, he will be brought up on charges of perjury.'
Presidents may legally undo executive orders signed by their predecessors, including pardons, however there is no legal mechanism to retract clemency after it is granted.
Biden signed 162 executive orders during his tenure.
Among the most controversial were the autopen-signed pardons of Dr. Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, and members of the January 6 committee.
Biden also pardoned family members - James B. Biden, Sara Jones Biden, Valerie Biden Owens, John T. Owens, and Francis W. Biden - on his last full day in office.
The Democrat's only hand-signed pardon during his final months in office was also his most pivotal - the order signed for his recovering cocaine-addict son, Hunter.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
OK, is there a record of the APOTUS at work?
This is new to me. Can any FReeper confirm this?
Pardons are not Executive Orders, and thus can’t be undone. I’m not sure what the Daily Mail reporter is smoking.
.
IF NOT LEGALLY HANDLED-—THEY CERTAINLY SHOULD BE REVERSIBLE
“ailing”? Say what? 🤔🤣👍
Hes british, he doesn’t understand.
If a pardon is granted, and the autopen was used to sign it, there must be official documentation of the approval to use the autopen that has the President’s instructions documented, and that includes pardons and Executive Orders.
That is what I have been told.
Obviously, this is common sense. Otherwise, the autopen could be used for any purpose at all...by anyone with access to the autopen.
There are people on this very forum who think that the autopen usage by someone appointed by the President (such as Biden’s White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients) is the same as Thomas Becket being appointed Lord Chancellor by the King of England in the 12th Century and given the Seal of England which authorized him to make any decision on behalf of, or in the absence or incapacitation of the King, no questions asked.
Does anyone really think that would have been an acceptable practice to the Founders? (apparently the answer is “yes”, given some of the responses to this issue on this forum)
>> Pardons are not Executive Orders, and thus can’t be undone. I’m not sure what the Daily Mail reporter is smoking.
They’re Brits, they came out of the womb with their heads up their Yurps.
A presidential pardon issued by a U.S. President cannot be revoked by a subsequent President (or by anyone else, including Congress or the courts).Key reasons and supporting evidence:
1. Constitutional authority is unilateral and final
The pardon power comes from Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution:
“[The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Once a pardon is delivered and accepted, it is an exercised executive act that becomes irrevocable. This has been the consistent understanding since the earliest days of the republic.
2. Supreme Court precedent
• Ex parte Garland (1866): The Court described a pardon as “a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance… It is a constituent part of the judicial system… Its effect is to relieve the offender from the consequences of the offense.” Once delivered and accepted, it is final.
• Biddle v. Perovich (1927): The Court ruled that the pardon power is “not subject to legislative control” and that a pardon, once granted, “cannot be annulled or withdrawn by a succeeding President.”
• Schick v. Reed (1974): Reaffirmed that the pardon power is “unlimited” except by the two constitutional exceptions (impeachment and state crimes), and once exercised it is complete.
3. Historical practice
No President has ever successfully revoked a valid pardon issued by a predecessor. Attempts or suggestions to do so (e.g., criticism of Ford’s pardon of Nixon, Trump’s pardons, or Biden’s pardons) have never resulted in legal revocation. Even controversial pardons (Andrew Johnson’s pardons of Confederate officials, Carter’s draft-evader pardon, Clinton’s Marc Rich pardon) remain in force regardless of later presidents’ opinions.
4. The only theoretical limitations or “revocation” scenarios
• If a pardon was obtained by fraud or bribery and that fact is proven in court, some scholars argue a court could potentially declare it void (this has never happened and is untested).
• A pardon that was never actually delivered or accepted before the president left office can lapse (see Ex parte Garland and the later “midnight pardons” cases).
• Self-pardons, if ever issued and challenged, might be treated differently, but that question remains unresolved.
In short: Once a valid, delivered, and accepted presidential pardon is in effect, no subsequent President has the constitutional power to revoke or undo it. It is permanent.
A presidential pardon issued by a U.S. President cannot be revoked by a subsequent President (or by anyone else, including Congress or the courts).Key reasons and supporting evidence:
1. Constitutional authority is unilateral and final
The pardon power comes from Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution:
“[The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Once a pardon is delivered and accepted, it is an exercised executive act that becomes irrevocable. This has been the consistent understanding since the earliest days of the republic.
2. Supreme Court precedent
• Ex parte Garland (1866): The Court described a pardon as “a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance… It is a constituent part of the judicial system… Its effect is to relieve the offender from the consequences of the offense.” Once delivered and accepted, it is final.
• Biddle v. Perovich (1927): The Court ruled that the pardon power is “not subject to legislative control” and that a pardon, once granted, “cannot be annulled or withdrawn by a succeeding President.”
• Schick v. Reed (1974): Reaffirmed that the pardon power is “unlimited” except by the two constitutional exceptions (impeachment and state crimes), and once exercised it is complete.
3. Historical practice
No President has ever successfully revoked a valid pardon issued by a predecessor. Attempts or suggestions to do so (e.g., criticism of Ford’s pardon of Nixon, Trump’s pardons, or Biden’s pardons) have never resulted in legal revocation. Even controversial pardons (Andrew Johnson’s pardons of Confederate officials, Carter’s draft-evader pardon, Clinton’s Marc Rich pardon) remain in force regardless of later presidents’ opinions.
4. The only theoretical limitations or “revocation” scenarios
• If a pardon was obtained by fraud or bribery and that fact is proven in court, some scholars argue a court could potentially declare it void (this has never happened and is untested).
• A pardon that was never actually delivered or accepted before the president left office can lapse (see Ex parte Garland and the later “midnight pardons” cases).
• Self-pardons, if ever issued and challenged, might be treated differently, but that question remains unresolved.
should and can are two different things ...
“If a pardon is granted, and the autopen was used to sign it, there must be official documentation of the approval to use the autopen that has the President’s instructions documented, and that includes pardons and Executive Orders.”
you just fabricated the above out of thin air; the truth of the matter is as follows:
There is no law, rule, or regulation that explicitly requires formal documentation (such as written records, logs, or certifications) for a U.S. President to authorize or use an autopen—a mechanical device that replicates a signature with ink—for signing official documents.
Key Legal and Historical Context
• Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution requires the President to “sign” approved bills to make them law but does not specify that the signature must be handwritten or personally applied, nor does it mandate any documentation of the signing process. The Constitution is silent on the form of the signature or any record-keeping requirements for it.
• Department of Justice Guidance: A 2005 memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) under President George W. Bush explicitly concluded that the President may direct a subordinate to affix their signature to a bill (e.g., via autopen) without personally performing the act, as long as the President has approved the content and decided to sign it. This opinion emphasizes presidential intent over the physical method but does not require or mention any specific documentation to validate the authorization.
• Absence of Governing Law: Multiple legal analyses and reports confirm there is no federal statute, executive order, or regulation that regulates autopen use across all presidential actions or mandates documentation for it. For instance:
• Autopen use dates back to at least Thomas Jefferson (using a precursor device) and has been employed by presidents including Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Gerald Ford, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden for bills, pardons, and routine correspondence.
• Presidents like Obama used it for time-sensitive legislation (e.g., the 2011 Patriot Act extension while abroad), and no court has invalidated such actions for lack of documentation.
• Related Practices and Norms: While not legally required, White House procedures often involve internal records of presidential directives (e.g., verbal or informal approvals) for accountability, especially in high-stakes contexts like pardons. A 2025 House Oversight Committee report criticized gaps in contemporaneous written authorizations for some Biden-era autopen-signed documents, recommending better documentation for transparency, but this is a congressional critique, not a binding rule. Similarly, a 2025 bill (the SIGN Pardons Act) proposed requiring physical signatures for pardons but did not pass and addressed method, not documentation.
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.