I’m not “willy-nilly” deciding anything. You’re making laws up that simply do not exist. There is no law regulating how, or with what implements, a President must sign a bill.
The Constitution simply says he must sign. He did. Show me any law that says that an authorized signature by a Presidential autopen isn’t an official signature. There isn’t one. It isn’t in the Constitution, or anywhere else.
This is an issue of signature techonology, not of Constitutionality. If you want to amend the Constitution to require hand-signature by ball-point pen, have at it ... but the current Constitution does not address the issue.
SnakeDoc
“any mark intended to authenticate”
if he wanted he could sign with an “X”
I thought these machines were used for form letters to White House letter writers, donation requests, etc. Not for signing real legislation.
The problem with the autopen is that we're never really sure that Obama actually SAW the bill he was purported to have signed.
"Signing" presumes that he was actually there and functioning, and had actually touched the bill that he was signing.
With the autopen, he could be in a hospital with a blod clot for all we know when the bill was "signed."
Even this Wikipedia article on Autopen questions the legitimacy of using the autopen to sign legislation.
-PJ
Autopens have been in existence since about 1803. Jefferson was known to use one extensively, but NEVER used one to sign a bill into law.
In fact, NO President [until Obama] EVER used one on an official US legislative document.
The consensus of historians is that, in order for a signature to be valid, our forefathers insisted that it be personally scribed on documents - AND USUALLY in front of witnesses.
In 1787, when the Constitution was written, there WAS no autopen, so when the following was written into the Constitution:
... Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it ... If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law ...
This CLEARLY states that the President MUST personally sign it - or wait 10 days for it to become law without his signature.
The Constitution ALSO states that:
... This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land ...
This means that the Constitution controls AS WRITTEN and as the Founders KNEW it to mean.
FORTUNATELY, the Founders provided for revision:
... The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress ...
This means that UNTIL the Constitution is amended, the meaning in the ORIGINAL text controls.
This is an issue of signature techonology, not of Constitutionality. If you want to amend the Constitution to require hand-signature by ball-point pen, have at it ... but the current Constitution does not address the issue.
Autopens did not exist in the 18th century - when the Founders said he had to sign it, they meant he had to personally sign it ...
They also said that you just could not deviate from the Constitution - unless by Amendment.