Obama uses 'autopen' to sign fiscal cliff - is this constitutional ???

www.dailymail.co.uk...

# Obama is the only president in history to use autopen to sign bills into law
# Also used autopen to sign Patriot Act while in France in May 2011 and to sign legislation to fund the government while in Bali in November 2011
# Questions over whether using the gadget is unconstitutional
# He flew back to Hawaii after the House passed the fiscal cliff deal

It's a highly-anticipated deal that keeps his nation from teetering over the edge of the fiscal cliff - yet President Obama has not even shown up to sign the new bill into law.
Instead, Obama, who is vacationing in Hawaii, has signed the bill using an autopen, a mechanical device that copies his signature - allowing him to accept the deal after playing a round of golf.

what's up with that ?
it's bad enough that nobody read the thing before sending it to him, but now we see that his signature is a virtual one.

it's quite possible obama has not even read this bill.

Conservative critics have claimed that using the autopen for a president to write his signature is unconstitutional.
Article 1, Section 7 of the constitution states that if a bill is passed by both the House and Senate, it shall be presented to the president. 'If he approve(s) he shall sign it,' states the Constitution. There is nothing in the document that suggests a reasonable facsimile affixed by an appliance will do just as well.
But in 2005, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel deemed the use of the autopen constitution, ruling that 'the President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill to sign it'.
The autopen is often used by politicians and celebrities to duplicate signatures for letters. Obama is the first president to use the device to sign a bill into law, but Harry Truman, Thomas Jefferson and Gerald Ford are also known to have used the autopen.

reply to post by tinhattribunal


Why is it that there is no other source on this matter out there that I can find? What would be the reason for him to use an auto pen for one or two signatures. This seems more like an advertising plug with a made up story to me.

Not by you, but by the dailymail.

reply to post by tinhattribunal


I'd say its unconstitutional to not physically sign a document as required by law...

but then again..

how many Presidents have actually signed something they have not read..

but did not know who even wrote it?

good find..

disgusting sign of the times for sure...

Not sure how it can be legally binding.

Obama has no way of knowing that the document the magic pen signed is the same one he read.

Just imagine what can be signed off with that thing.

I wonder if Obama even knows half of the things that have been signed with it?

CX.

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
reply to post by tinhattribunal

 

Why is it that there is no other source on this matter out there that I can find? What would be the reason for him to use an auto pen for one or two signatures. This seems more like an advertising plug with a made up story to me.

Not by you, but by the dailymail.

edit on 1/3/2013 by CaptGizmo because: (no reason given)

They use autopen when something needs to be signed in a timely manner. Tons of things have been signed using autopen. I believe in this instance, Obama used it to get the measure taken care of immediately. I think he was still in Hawaii or something (I could be wrong).

While other Presidents have used autopen... Obama is the FIRST to use Autopen to sign a bill into law. Quite interesting.

I just found this from back in 2011 if anyone is interested regarding this issue. Apperently this has been going on for whie now.
abcnews.go.com...

I guess if it's legal than it's constitutional? I don't know...Wonder what they did before the advent of this technology.
Maybe power of attorney or something signed it for them when they were to far away to sign in person.

I guess when you care enough, you try enough. When you don't? You auto-pen the thing.

Apparently, getting to his vacationing in Hawaii was FAR more important than staying in Washington long enough to physically be there when what he claimed mattered SO much to him finally came out of the House as a cooked bird and ready to serve.

I really do prefer people like Bill Clinton to this man. Clinton didn't like my end of the political spectrum and has never made any bones about that fact any more that most try and hide their dislike for HIM. However, he showed the other side the BASIC respect of showing up and doing the duty his Office demanded of him. He did his best to make it work, despite how difficult my side managed to make life for him.

It's this casual disrespect and dismissal that I find so outrageously inappropriate for a sitting U.S. President. He isn't a Senator here where it's 'just one of the guys' and a man among over 500 others. He's *THE* Executive leader of this nation. BOTH sides of it. It'd be nice if he at least paid more than lip service to that occasionally.

Not sure how this device works, but if it replicates a signature which the person "signing" originally put into the machine, and has the signatories consent, then I don't see the problem.

If anything, it could be more productive/cheaper than spending thousands on travel to sign in person.

reply to post by tinhattribunal


Obama and his silly gang of criminals have already abandoned the constitution and will continue to do so long after he's out of office. The next president will keep the ball rolling and so on and so forth. This Gov't does not abide by the constitution and by default should be null and void but that's easier said than done.

Originally posted by woogleuk
Not sure how this device works, but if it replicates a signature which the person "signing" originally put into the machine, and has the signatories consent, then I don't see the problem.

If anything, it could be more productive/cheaper than spending thousands on travel to sign in person.

How could Obama know the content of the document being signed?

Why even sign the document at all then? Obama could just gives a thumbs up on video from Hawaii.

What exactly is the legal purpose of a signature on a document? It's to show that the signer read the document.

It seems like this bill was passed without anybody actually reading what was signed.

..."But in 2005, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel deemed the use of the autopen constitution[al], ruling that 'the President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill to sign it'."

What the hell? Since when is the Justice Dept. Office of Legal Counsel the arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional? There are many of us who argue that not even the damn Supreme Court has the authority to decide Constitutionality (look it up!)....

if a white guy used it he would be a smart time manager using modern technology

bazinga

Originally posted by sconner755

Originally posted by woogleuk
Not sure how this device works, but if it replicates a signature which the person "signing" originally put into the machine, and has the signatories consent, then I don't see the problem.

If anything, it could be more productive/cheaper than spending thousands on travel to sign in person.

How could Obama know the content of the document being signed?

Gee maybe a fax machine, or a PDF file, possibly a webcam, there are an amazing variety of ways to share documents with others..