The power of the (auto) pen and the US Constitution - Polidicks

[quote]Honolulu, Hawaii (CNN) - If you are a president who desperately wants to salvage your Hawaiian vacation, why stick around Washington to sign a bill when an automatic pen can do it for you? That’s what happened Wednesday when the long-haggled over bill to avert the fiscal cliff was delivered to the White House for the president’s signature. With Obama 5,000 miles away in Hawaii, aides decided to prepare the president with an electronic version of the document for his review rather than commission a special flight to currier over the document. Upon review of the electronic copy, the president directed his signature be affixed to the bill – via that auto pen back in Washingon. It’s a move that, while convenient, raised questions over just how a president can make a bill become a law. After all, Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution provides that a bill must be presented to the president and “[i]f he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it” (emphasis added). So can an auto-pen, where the president himself is not technically signing, conform to what the Constitution demands? It was a matter the Justice Department considered in 2005, determining then that the word “sign” does not necessarily mean an active signature by the president himself. Rather, the Justice Department stated, “a person may sign a document by directing that his signature be affixed to it by another.” “So long as the president retains this decision-making function, his instruction to a subordinate to affix the President’s signature to a document does not amount to a delegation of presidential authority in any meaningful or legally significant sense,” the department concluded in a 29-page memo. A White House official also noted the president has used the auto-pen twice before: once to extend provisions of the Patriot Act in May of 2011 and another time to enact a government spending bill in November of 2011. Both times, the president was traveling out of the country when the bills were ready for his signature. While the handy tool exactly mimics the president’s signature, its use to affix legal authority to bills is not without controversy. When Obama first used the autopen in May of 2011 to extend the Patriot Act, one lawmaker sent a letter to the president arguing that the use of the device in this context sets a “dangerous precedent.” “Any number of circumstances could arise in the future where the public could question whether or not the president authorized the use of an autopen,” Georgia Republican Rep. Tom Graves wrote then. “For example, if the president is hospitalized and not fully alert, can a group of aggressive Cabinet members interpret a wink or a squeeze of the hand as approval of an autopen signing?” If nothing else, it appears safe to assume the auto-pen will become welcome practice to future presidents eager to begin a vacation thousands of miles away from the nation’s capital – even if a bill signing awaits him.[/quote] Source: [url]http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/03/the-power-of-the-auto-pen/[/url]

People literally question the constitutionality of everything just for the hell of it, apparently.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39119261]People literally question the constitutionality of everything just for the hell of it, apparently.[/QUOTE] Well, best to get it out of the way now than wait for some odd circumstances make a big fuss out of it.

I always thought that the signature was more of a symbolic gesture- a way of saying "Yes, I agree to this," or what have you. As long as the intent is clearly conveyed then I don't see the problem.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39119272]Well, best to get it out of the way now than wait for some odd circumstances make a big fuss out of it.[/QUOTE] Yeah but the writers of the Constitution could not possibly have imagined that the President would be able to sign bills from across the country, so it's not surprising that it isn't exactly written to accommodate for this. Approving of a bill remotely isn't any different from approving of it when it's on your desk; you've read the text and issued your approval. If the President is in a state where he can't verbalize his approval then the VP will have taken over his duties until his recovery.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;39119286]I always thought that the signature was more of a symbolic gesture- a way of saying "Yes, I agree to this," or what have you. As long as the intent is clearly conveyed then I don't see the problem.[/QUOTE] One man's "clearly conveyed" is someone else's "foggy understanding". Signing it is a clear and direct proof of intention.

Just watch as the Conservatives get butthurt over something or other and use the autopen argument to shoot something irrelevant down. :v:

He's still signing it, but with just another medium.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39119301]Yeah but the writers of the Constitution could not possibly have imagined that the President would be able to sign bills from across the country, so it's not surprising that it isn't exactly written to accommodate for this. Approving of a bill remotely isn't any different from approving of it when it's on your desk; you've read the text and issued your approval. If the President is in a state where he can't verbalize his approval then the VP will have taken over his duties until his recovery.[/QUOTE] holographic signatures have the benefit of directly verifyng the person who does the signing. Imagine a courier bringing a president's consent during the time the constitution was drafted as an example. For instance our president is not required to sign laws for them to come into effect. He merely must not use hoes right of veto. But by not signing he shows discontent with the law, that is nt sufficient to ask for a veto though By signing he shows full consent.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;39119505]holographic signatures have the benefit of directly verifyng the person who does the signing. Imagine a courier bringing a president's consent during the time the constitution was drafted as an example. For instance our president is not required to sign laws for them to come into effect. He merely must not use hoes right of veto. But by not signing he shows discontent with the law, that is nt sufficient to ask for a veto though By signing he shows full consent.[/QUOTE] If he doesn't sign it in X time it dies on his desk.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;39119505]holographic signatures have the benefit of directly verifyng the person who does the signing. Imagine a courier bringing a president's consent during the time the constitution was drafted as an example.[/QUOTE] Well if we're going to get into fictional technology, why not just keep a handful of clones of the President lying around? When one is needed, wake him, have him do his thing, then kill him. We'll have plenty more in case he is needed again while he is not available.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39119261]People literally question the constitutionality of everything just for the hell of it, apparently.[/QUOTE] We wouldn't be America otherwise! I will never criticize others for questioning the constitutionality, I will criticize them for attempting to destroy something valid using the excuse of constitutionality.

[QUOTE=Ridge;39120061]Well if we're going to get into fictional technology, why not just keep a handful of clones of the President lying around? When one is needed, wake him, have him do his thing, then kill him. We'll have plenty more in case he is needed again while he is not available.[/QUOTE] holographic signatures aren't fictional technology [editline]6th January 2013[/editline] or necessarily high-tech

Someone should hack the autopen to write "All your base..."

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;39120323]Someone should hack the autopen to write "All your base..."[/QUOTE] Go with a more modern meme. Like, "ur a faget"

[QUOTE=Ridge;39120061]Well if we're going to get into fictional technology, why not just keep a handful of clones of the President lying around? When one is needed, wake him, have him do his thing, then kill him. We'll have plenty more in case he is needed again while he is not available.[/QUOTE] Holoraphic signatures are signatures done by own hand. As opposed to allographic which are signatures by other hand.

he should just use his thumbprint instead of signing it

obama needs a galaxy note II

[quote]So can an auto-pen, where the president himself is not technically signing, conform to what the Constitution demands?[/quote] Oh for fuck's sake, it's not like we're letting HAL run the nation.

[QUOTE=Irkalla;39119788]If he doesn't sign it in X time it dies on his desk.[/QUOTE] Only if the Congress is out of session upon the end of the ten day period, then it becomes a pocket veto where there is no further action and the bill is dead. Correction: If Congress is in session, the bill becomes law without a signature at the end of the 10-day session (not including Sundays).

[QUOTE=Ridge;39120061]Well if we're going to get into fictional technology, why not just keep a handful of clones of the President lying around? When one is needed, wake him, have him do his thing, then kill him. We'll have plenty more in case he is needed again while he is not available.[/QUOTE] [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3552132.stm[/url] Not fictional at all fuckface

[quote]That’s what happened Wednesday when the long-haggled over bill to avert the fiscal cliff was delivered to the White House for the president’s signature. With Obama 5,000 miles away in Hawaii, aides decided to prepare the president with an electronic version of the document for his review rather than commission a special flight to [b]currier[/b] over the document.[/quote] It's spelled "courier" for fucks sake.

President signs bill to cut spending, and keep taxes from being raised, while on vacation in Hawaii. Yeah.

it's not a big deal at all but for some reason that just seems so much less professional than signing it by hand if I were the president, I would demand that 100% of the documents that pass through my office be on vellum, and I would sign and write every single letter with a feather pen dipped in ink

teabagger rage inbound

Were I president, I would sign all of my bills in creative and unconventional ways. [I]Ransom Note[/I]-style magazine clippings, laser etchings, specially made stamps, photomosaics. Whatever, really. I might also go all Major Major on them, and start signing Washington Irving. Or Irving Washington. Or just whatever seems right. An automatic pen is a silly thing to make a fuss about!

I just see this as a problem as someone could use it to sign bills into laws without the presidents authority.

Autopen has been around for a while. The Kennedy's were known to use it. Not sure if it goes further back than that President wise, but the point is that Obama certainly isn't the first to use it. Seems like a slow news day type of article.

[QUOTE=assassin_Raptor;39126781]I just see this as a problem as someone could use it to sign bills into laws without the presidents authority.[/QUOTE] Really? You really think someone would be able to get a bill all the way through the various stages and onto his desk only for someone to fake his signature? When was the last time Obama actually veteo'd anything anyway.

[QUOTE=cccritical;39125894]it's not a big deal at all but for some reason that just seems so much less professional than signing it by hand if I were the president, I would demand that 100% of the documents that pass through my office be on vellum, and I would sign and write every single letter with a feather pen dipped in ink[/QUOTE] i agree, it's fun to fantasize about what'd we do in positions we'll never be in ever