• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Presidential use of the autopen

Is the use of the autopen to sign bills Constitutional?

  • Total voters
    25
tessaesque said:
He's giving authorization to approve bills that the House and Senate have already voted on.
Click to expand...


You do not think the house and senate would sneak in something or allow something to be sneaked it?

As another poster mentioned, the likelihood that either house or the president are actually reading these bills in their entirety is pretty much non-existent.
Click to expand...
Which is why its even a bigger deal of the president NOT SIGNING THE BILL HIMSELF.

If we want to solve the problem we need to go to the root of it. Fixating on autopen is silly.
Click to expand...

The autopen is a blatant violation of the constitution so what is silly is playing off this autopen as no big deal.
 
I don't get the upset. Its not like 'Autopen' has taken a life of its own and is signing executive orders on its own. The President approved of and signed for the legislation. He is directly responsible for the signature, regardless of whether or not he signed it in person or from Europe.
 
jamesrage said:
There is no worry that congress or senate could take advantage of the fact the president is not signing the bill?
Click to expand...

Its not like they read the things anyway. They could sneak in just as much today. Im certain there is a team of lawyers reviewing the legislation before the president signs it...its not like he is a congressman 'just' voting.
 
jamesrage said:
You do not think the house and senate would sneak in something or allow something to be sneaked it?


Which is why its even a bigger deal of the president NOT SIGNING THE BILL HIMSELF.



The autopen is a blatant violation of the constitution so what is silly is playing off this autopen as no big deal.
Click to expand...

It isn't a big deal. Whether he signs it personally or not, it isn't being read. Crap is snuck into almost every bill that lands on the president's desk. Pelosi and other reps have freely admitted to not reading bills prior to voting on them. I can't say it's "clearly" a violation of the constitution. Autopen didn't exist in 1778.
 
VanceMack said:
I don't get the upset. Its not like 'Autopen' has taken a life of its own and is signing executive orders on its own. The President approved of and signed for the legislation. He is directly responsible for the signature, regardless of whether or not he signed it in person or from Europe.
Click to expand...

Yeah - I'm leaning in this direction.

It is his will - it's also his signature (the autopen doesn't do it on it's own - it's programmed, with permission, based on the president's decision). If he didn't approve of the autopen then he wouldn't be using it - and *then* it wouldn't be acceptable if someone used it regardless.

You know - what if he was in an accident or ill and unable to use his hands and sign - I think the autopen would be accepted in that situation ,wouldn't it?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Yeah - I'm leaning in this direction.

It is his will - it's also his signature (the autopen doesn't do it on it's own - it's programmed, with permission, based on the president's decision). If he didn't approve of the autopen then he wouldn't be using it - and *then* it wouldn't be acceptable if someone used it regardless.

You know - what if he was in an accident or ill and unable to use his hands and sign - I think the autopen would be accepted in that situation ,wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Im thinking we have the premise for a new movie here

"...and in 2013, Autopen became self aware. First Autopen eliminated the president as the most direct threat to its survival...then...Autopen signed a series of executive orders launching nuclear attacks on Russia, China, and New Zealand (just to mess with peoples minds)..."
 
Does the autopen think for Barack Obama to?
 
tessaesque said:
Yeah, let's waste time and non-existent money on a lawsuit over autopen.
Click to expand...

But you know someone will. Someone will run afoul of the provisions of the bill that was signed with the autopen and someone will use this in his defense. It WILL happen... watch...
 
tessaesque said:
It isn't a big deal. Whether he signs it personally or not, it isn't being read. Crap is snuck into almost every bill that lands on the president's desk. Pelosi and other reps have freely admitted to not reading bills prior to voting on them. I can't say it's "clearly" a violation of the constitution. Autopen didn't exist in 1778.
Click to expand...

The Constitution says CLEARLY that it must be signed by the president. There is no room for a machine designated by the president to sign it. Use the autopen for correspondence. No problem, but for signing bills into law? Against the letter of the Constitution.
 
ludahai said:
The Constitution says CLEARLY that it must be signed by the president. There is no room for a machine designated by the president to sign it. Use the autopen for correspondence. No problem, but for signing bills into law? Against the letter of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Remember that when the Constitution was written, people were hand-writing laws with quills, and hand-delivering them to the White House. Nothing like the autopen was even on the horizon, so the "letter of the Constitution" isn't a very good guide here. After all, I assume most of us wouldn't have a problem with the president signing a faxed copy of the legislation rather than the original document (I don't even know if there is such a thing as the "original document" anymore, or if each legislator has his own copy)...and as I see it the autopen is just an extension of that principle.

It should be used sparingly IMO, to avoid any confusion as to whether or not the president actually approved it. But in situations where it's clearly his intent to sign the law and an autopen is more convenient than an actual signature for whatever reason, I don't have a problem with it. Unconstitutional? Hardly...unless you are completely unwilling to make adjustments for post-1789 technology.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if it's constitutional or not, this seems to be a non-issue to me. If it's unconstitutional, the SCOTUS would have to rule it that way.
 
ludahai said:
The Constitution says CLEARLY that it must be signed by the president. There is no room for a machine designated by the president to sign it. Use the autopen for correspondence. No problem, but for signing bills into law? Against the letter of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Sue and take it to the SCOTUS. See how far you get with that.
 
tessaesque said:
Prove it. Sue and take it to the SCOTUS. See how far you get with that.
Click to expand...

I have no intention of violating the law... however, someone will run afoul of the provisions of the law and will use it as a defense...

As for the wording of the Constitution, it is VERY CLEAR. It states that the President must sign the legislation. There is no ambiguity there...
 
ludahai said:
I have no intention of violating the law... however, someone will run afoul of the provisions of the law and will use it as a defense...

As for the wording of the Constitution, it is VERY CLEAR. It states that the President must sign the legislation. There is no ambiguity there...
Click to expand...

If a congressional clerk faxes a copy of the legislation to the White House, and the president signs it and faxes a signed copy back to Congress, would you consider that a legitimate signature?
 
ludahai said:
So, it doesn't matter if he does anything illegal or unconstitutional, he is still your president and what he says, goes?
Click to expand...

For as long as he is the Head of State, and for as long as I am loyal to the State, then yes. Our government has lawful means to remove a sitting President from office, and until those methods have been followed to the letter and the President has been lawfully removed from office, he is the President.

If any President ever does something severe enough to justify my refusal to recognize his authority, he will either be lawfully removed from office by the State, or I will be forced to break my affiliation with the State.

On this, there is no middle ground.

VanceMack said:
I don't get the upset. Its not like 'Autopen' has taken a life of its own and is signing executive orders on its own. The President approved of and signed for the legislation. He is directly responsible for the signature, regardless of whether or not he signed it in person or from Europe.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The President signed the bill. The Autopen is nothing more than a writing implement.
 
ludahai said:
The Constitution is VERY clear. It states that it must be signed by the president. It isn't intent of the President.

Someone could challenge this in court and could possibly win, which creates a very dangerous situation.
Click to expand...

Mom, mom, Obama is playing with AUTOPEN...

The Constitution was written over two hundred years ago. It might need a little revision every once in a while.
 
I think we can come up with better things to be cross about in our government.
 
ludahai said:
I have no intention of violating the law... however, someone will run afoul of the provisions of the law and will use it as a defense...

As for the wording of the Constitution, it is VERY CLEAR. It states that the President must sign the legislation. There is no ambiguity there...
Click to expand...

The debate is whether or not autopen classifies as the president signing it. Apparently, precedent would indicate that it does, thus nullifying this stupid constitutionality argument.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't think any president, in recent time, has read all the bills he has signed.
Most likely he has received a brief by a staffer and said "yea or nay" to that.

That should just about disqualify most bills passed in the last 20-30 years.
Click to expand...

Constitution doesn't say the President has to actually 'read' the bill. It does however say 'he' has to sign it... not a machine.
 
atrasicarius said:
You know, I'm gonna go ahead and say that the Patriot act is a larger violation of the Constitution than using an autopen to sign it. If the founders were here right now, I think I can take a guess as to which one they'd be more concerned about.
Click to expand...

But, this missed Ludahai's point, at least as I see it. He doesn't seem to be challenging the validity of the laws signed with an autopen himself, and isn't arguing that they should be. Rather the concern is about someone else challenging those laws. This leads to a dangerous situation in some cases.
 
If Palin used an autopen to sign things in Alaska, if certain posters would be all over her like white on rice.

Just sayin...
 
Whovian said:
Constitution doesn't say the President has to actually 'read' the bill. It does however say 'he' has to sign it... not a machine.
Click to expand...

The obvious purpose of that part of the Constitution was so that the president would have to either approve or reject the law, and a signature just happened to be the traditional way of indicating approval at the time (and still is). I can't imagine that the Founding Fathers would give a damn whether he performed the physical act of signing the law, as long as it's clear that he approved of it and was willing to affix his name to it. I mean, what practical implication of using an autopen is there, which the Founding Fathers could possibly have foreseen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom