Pipe dream or possible? Any legal analyses?

sirhrmechanic said:

Where does our nation and our system of checks and balances go from here?

Click to expand...

sirhrmechanic said:

Some of that is definitely saying the quiet part out loud! Well-said.

I am wondering… the “cabal” must have known that the autopen was shaky ground… because the one document they needed for their Kamala Coup…. They made him hand sign. No auto pen to remove a President from the ticket.

Seems to me that represents a smoking gun… when you know you have to get a real signature for your new candidate to complete the coup.

But as you say… it’s a Pandoras Box..

Then Again, if left to stand, does the next Cabal take it further and make it even more egregious? If laws were broken and Constitutional lines were crossed, are we obligated as a nation to “not” brush it off?

Lots of folks saying “This is worse than Watergate” over the decades. And IMHO watergate was a tempest in a teapot… but the Left wanted Nixon gone….

This, on the other hand, is a crisis, potentially at a Constitutional level, that makes Watergate look like Jaywalking.

Thanks for the good analysis!

Sirhr

Click to expand...

UNRL Ghandi said:

I'd think the use of an auto pen would be fine if controlled by the signer, but if otherwise, I'd think that is no bueno.

My profession is in/around Government contracting and anyone who signs documents has to have a delegation of authority letter which authorizes them to sign and legally bind the entity they are signing on behalf of. You can have multiple levels of delegation but I can't imagine the POTUS can delegate his authority legally if what is being signed has to be signed by the POTUS. For example, ITAR documents have to be signed by my company's Empowered Official, of which there is only one for us and it's not me, so I can't sign those documents even though I have authority to commit/bind the company legally. Only the owner of our company can sign those docs with the Dept of State/DDTC. There has to be a law that says ONLY the President can sign x, y, or z. Anything signed by someone else in those cases should be thrown out, but I'd be willing to bet the courts would try to claim intent and Biden was not opposed to what his name was signed to so it's all good.

Those are my thoughts. I'm not a lawyer nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so do with that info what you will.

Click to expand...

sirhrmechanic said:

what is the law on this?

Click to expand...

What Is Allowed for Autopen Use

Presidents have used autopens for decades to manage the sheer volume of documents requiring their signature, especially those that are routine or ceremonial in nature. The practice dates back to at least Thomas Jefferson, who used an early version called a polygraph, and became more formalized with modern autop machines in the 20th century. Examples of documents typically considered acceptable for autopen signatures include:

1. Correspondence and Ceremonial Documents: Autopens are often used for signing letters, greeting cards, thank-you notes, or photographs sent to constituents, dignitaries, or organizations. For instance, a president might use an autopen to sign thousands of holiday cards or congratulatory messages to Eagle Scouts.
2. Military Commissions and Certificates: Historically, autop signatures have been applied to commissions for military officers or certificates of appreciation, where the signature serves a symbolic rather than legally operative purpose.
3. Legislation (with Authorization): The use of an autopen for signing bills into law has precedent and has been deemed legally permissible when explicitly authorized by the president. The first notable instance occurred in 2011 when President Barack Obama, while in France, authorized an autopen to sign an extension of the Patriot Act. The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an opinion stating that this was constitutional under Article I, Section 7, as long as the president directed its use, effectively treating the autopen as an extension of his intent to sign.

Click to expand...

What Is Not Allowed (or Controversial) for Autopen Use

Certain presidential actions involve unique constitutional powers that some argue require the president’s personal involvement, raising questions about whether an autopen is appropriate. Examples include:

1. Pardons and Clemency: The power to grant pardons is vested solely in the president under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States.” Because this is a discretionary act tied to the president’s individual judgment, critics contend that using an autopen could undermine its legitimacy if the president didn’t personally review or approve each case. There’s no explicit legal prohibition, but the lack of a personal signature might invite challenges to the intent behind the pardon.
2. Executive Orders (Without Clear Authorization): Executive orders direct federal agencies and carry the force of law, reflecting the president’s Article II authority to manage the executive branch. While autop signatures have been used for executive orders, some legal scholars argue that if the president is unaware of or uninvolved in the issuance—say, due to cognitive decline or delegation to staff—the order’s validity could be questioned. The Constitution doesn’t mandate a handwritten signature, but the perception of presidential control is key.
3. Treaty Ratifications: Ratifying treaties under Article II, Section 2 requires the president’s personal engagement after Senate approval. While the physical act of signing might technically be delegated, any suggestion that an autopen was used without the president’s direct knowledge could cast doubt on the process, though this hasn’t been tested in court.

Click to expand...