Looks like the Supreme Court has another case headed their way...

[The Original Happy Goat]

I don’t think the dancing orange orangutan’s signature is valid because we can’t tell what it says. Kind of like my doctor or mine in fact.

It doesn't matter. When it comes to pardons, there is no rule they must be signed. Or even put on paper. The document itself is only important as an evidentiary matter, to prove to a court that the pardon did, in fact, happen. And despite CO.H's protestations, there is no rule that the document must contain a signature, much alone a signature that was not devised by an autopen. The document these putative defendants would present as evidence of their pardon is an original document, not a facsimile, and therefore may be accepted by the court without any exterior authentication. If authentication is needed, however, all they need is for Biden to give testimony or sign an affidavit that he did, in fact, authorize said pardon. That's game over. Anyone who says otherwise is sorely perverting the plain meaning of the law and justice.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The president's signature isn't required for a pardon. You said look at the best evidence rule. The rule involves facsimiles of documents. It does not involve signature requirements.

If you are going to prove the existence of a pardon by means of a document purporting to be signed by the President, said document needs to be signed by the president.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

If you are going to prove the existence of a pardon by means of a document purporting to be signed by the President, said document needs to be signed by the president.

It was signed by the president.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It was signed by the president.

 

[iuwclurker]

What a stupid fkn discussion.

The fact is Trump gets literally constipated if he doesn’t file a lawsuit of some sort every day, including Sunday.

The irony is Trump is fecally incontinent so being constipated could be viewed as a blessing. For a day or two anyway.

Primal fear.

Man comes running into the barroom men’s room. Someone’s in the only stall. He screams, “Hurry man, I’ve got the runs.”

Guy in the stall groans in agony, “Lucky you.”

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

Just once, you should note that literally every authority disagrees with you, and wonder why that is.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Just once, you should note that literally every authority disagrees with you, and wonder why that is.

I wonder, theoretically what would make the auto pen problematic in a criminal case and not any other. Constitutionally, other than an override, the president has to sign a bill for it to be law. Why is it not a problem for the government to be concerned with on whether those bills are legal/

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

I wonder, theoretically what would make the auto pen problematic in a criminal case and not any other. Constitutionally, other than an override, the president has to sign a bill for it to be law. Why is it not a problem for the government to be concerned with on whether those bills are legal/

It shouldn't be a problem at all. CO.H is just being Socratic. 🤣

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I wonder, theoretically what would make the auto pen problematic in a criminal case and not any other. Constitutionally, other than an override, the president has to sign a bill for it to be law. Why is it not a problem for the government to be concerned with on whether those bills are legal/

An auto pen is an AI version of a rubber stamp. It is wholly ineffective for legislation. It might be ineffective for a pardon evidenced by a autopenned document; depending on extrinsic evidence.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Just once, you should note that literally every authority disagrees with you, and wonder why that is.

Won’t be the first time I was right and they were wrong. I gottta couple of good war stories about this.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

An auto pen is an AI version of a rubber stamp. It is wholly ineffective for legislation. It might be ineffective for a pardon evidenced by a autopenned document; depending on extrinsic evidence.

So every law signed by autopen since its invention could be stricken? How about normal contracts, there are a lot of digital signatures out in the real world. I would be surprised if the autopen is not held to similar standards.

Are electronic signatures legally binding in court? | Adobe Acrobat

Are electronic signatures legally binding like handwritten signatures? Learn what you need to create legally valid electronic documents.

www.adobe.com

 

[mcmurtry66]

It was signed by the president.

do you even know what an auto pen is? i think it's these machines. expensive af. but it's not a pen you hold (thought i'd get one to sign my minion's incident reports). in no way do i believe this changes anything, obviously, as there are so many other ways to prove up biden sanctioned the pardons, but it is different than i thought. anyone could do it

Handwriting Machines - The Autopen Company

Handwriting machines from the Autopen Company enable the authentic reproduction of real handwriting. Machines can be used to address envelopes.

damilic.com

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

do you even know what an auto pen is? i think it's these machines. expensive af. but it's not a pen you hold (thought i'd get one to sign my minion's incident reports). in no way do i believe this changes anything, obviously, as there are so many other ways to prove up biden sanctioned the pardons, but it is different than i thought. anyone could do it

Handwriting Machines - The Autopen Company

Handwriting machines from the Autopen Company enable the authentic reproduction of real handwriting. Machines can be used to address envelopes.

damilic.com

I know what it is. To me, the key is that the president authorized the use of the machine. That makes the machine's signature his by proxy, and tradition says that's good enough.

Now, if someone fraudulently used the machine to sign a document the president authorized, then that document would be invalid, obviously. The auto pen is only good as far as it carries the president's authorization.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

Won’t be the first time I was right and they were wrong. I gottta couple of good war stories about this.

I'm sure they are dandies.

Tell you what, if you end up right on this one, I owe you a beer.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Won’t be the first time I was right and they were wrong. I gottta couple of good war stories about this.

Isn't the first time you were wrong either and won't be the last I'm sure.

Is googlymoogly your alter ego? Seem very sure of your opinions being fact despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So every law signed by autopen since its invention could be stricken? How about normal contracts, there are a lot of digital signatures out in the real world. I would be surprised if the autopen is not held to similar standards.

Are electronic signatures legally binding in court? | Adobe Acrobat

Are electronic signatures legally binding like handwritten signatures? Learn what you need to create legally valid electronic documents.

www.adobe.com

Yes. Every law that does not bear the Presidents signature is not law.

You are the eleventy eighth person to bring up electronic signatures on commercial documents. I haven’t and won’t respond to that nonsense. Irrelevant.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I know what it is. To me, the key is that the president authorized the use of the machine. That makes the machine's signature his by proxy, and tradition says that's good enough.

I don’t think legislation has been ever signed with an auto pen. Administrations aren’t that stupid.

A president authorizing use is not good enough. The auto pen must also be so secure that only the President has access.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Yes. Every law that does not bear the Presidents signature is not law.

You are the eleventy eighth person to bring up electronic signatures on commercial documents. I haven’t and won’t respond to that nonsense. Irrelevant.

you can call it nonsense and irrelevant all you want but it illustrates that digital signatures are considered the same as regular signatures. Thus, it is in fact relevant to this discussion.

Your posts acting like digital signatures don't count is what is nonsense.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Yes. Every law that does not bear the Presidents signature is not law.

You are the eleventy eighth person to bring up electronic signatures on commercial documents. I haven’t and won’t respond to that nonsense. Irrelevant.

The Patriot Act was renewed by auto pen, and the fiscal cliff bill signed with it.

The Autopen: Presidential Use & Constitutionality | Shapell Manuscript Foundation

Learn about the presidential autopen: the constitutionality of an autopen signature, which U.S. presidents used the autopen machine, and its relevance today.

www.shapell.org

Heck, Jefferson used a form of auto pen in the day. If Congress did not want it, they have had plenty of time to deal with it

Lincoln signed pardon's using other people.

Below, signatures on pardons issued by President Abraham Lincoln that were recorded by his secretary of state or a designee, not Lincoln himself.​

​

Fact-checking Trump's claim that Biden pardons are 'void' because he used an autopen

Legal scholars say that the Constitution doesn’t require a pardon’s direct human signing, and subsequent judicial decisions and legal memoranda support an autopen’s use for similar purposes.

www.pbs.org

As usual you dismissed a point counter to yours without any explanation. Why is a digital signature being legally valid in other context totally irrelevant? You favor government efficiency, what part of flying documents all over the world is efficient?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

An auto pen is an AI version of a rubber stamp. It is wholly ineffective for legislation. It might be ineffective for a pardon evidenced by a autopenned document; depending on extrinsic evidence.

Bills have been signed into law with an autopen. Obama did it first. I don’t understand why you continue to argue this. I’ve yet to hear or read a legal scholar that agrees with your take.

 

[GooglyMooglyWooglyBoogly]

I’ve yet to hear or read a legal scholar that agrees with your take.

Your nonstop appeals to authority are a sign of a weak mind.

“Hey Aristotle, I haven’t seen a single other Greek polymath or philosopher contend that the earth is round”

That’s you.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Your nonstop appeals to authority are a sign of a weak mind.

“Hey Aristotle, I haven’t seen a single other Greek polymath or philosopher contend that the earth is round”

That’s you.

Your strong opinions about subjects you are absolutely ignorant about is a sign of an idiot. That’s you.

 

[GooglyMooglyWooglyBoogly]

Your strong opinions about subjects you are absolutely ignorant about is a sign of an idiot. That’s you.

You’ve never been able to prove my alleged ignorance unfortunately. Most of our exchanges start and end with your aforementioned appeals to authority. Whether your own authority, someone you know, or simply someone who agrees with you.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Bills have been signed into law with an autopen. Obama did it first. I don’t understand why you continue to argue this. I’ve yet to hear or read a legal scholar that agrees with your take.

I’ve never heard a legal scholar say a legislative act can become law without a presidents signature.

An auto pen is not a presidential signature.

Maybe it has happened, but if anybody wants to challenge it, I can’t imagine a Justice saying an auto pen satisfies the constitutional requirement of a presidential signature. This would be especially a problem if the president was not personally at the auto pen controls.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

You’ve never been able to prove my alleged ignorance unfortunately. Most of our exchanges start and end with your aforementioned appeals to authority. Whether your own authority, someone you know, or simply someone who agrees with you.

Are you kidding? Your extreme ignorance is obvious and noted by many posters here. You don’t bother to inform yourself by reading what experts say because for some strange reason you think you know more than any expert. Your know-it-all style when you actually know very little makes you an insufferable poster. I’d prefer not to see you here at all. In other words you should STFU.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I’ve never heard a legal scholar say a legislative act can become law without a presidents signature.

An auto pen is not a presidential signature.

Maybe it has happened, but if anybody wants to challenge it, I can’t imagine a Justice saying an auto pen satisfies the constitutional requirement of a presidential signature. This would be especially a problem if the president was not personally at the auto pen controls.

It’s only been reported in a couple dozen articles that it happened. No one is going to challenge it.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It’s only been reported in a couple dozen articles that it happened. No one is going to challenge it.

Looks like it happened one time, and never again.

The constitutional quibble with the autopen. (It's not what you think it is.)

Call him the maestro of the autopen. On May 26 of this year, only hours before three provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA")...

slate.com

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

An auto pen is not a presidential signature.

Saying the same lie over and over doesn't make it true

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Looks like it happened one time, and never again.

The constitutional quibble with the autopen. (It's not what you think it is.)

Call him the maestro of the autopen. On May 26 of this year, only hours before three provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA")...

slate.com

Feel free to challenge it.

OLC released this in 2005, "Whether the President May Sign a Bill by Directing That His Signature Be Affixed to It." Bottom line up front, it starts with "The President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law. Rather, the President may sign a bill within the meaning of Article I, Section 7 by directing a subordinate to affix the President’s signature to such a bill, for example by autopen."

https://www.justice.gov/file/494411/dl?inline=

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Looks like it happened one time, and never again.

The constitutional quibble with the autopen. (It's not what you think it is.)

Call him the maestro of the autopen. On May 26 of this year, only hours before three provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA")...

slate.com

How about my link showing Lincoln used the SoS and others to sign pardons for him?

 

[mcmurtry66]

How about my link showing Lincoln used the SoS and others to sign pardons for him?

This is a manufactured issue. It’s nonsense. It was publicized, made known, in keeping with his stated desires which as I understand it are enough as the const is silent as to a writing much less a signature, but damn that auto pen machine is not what I thought.

As a history buff you are familiar with the most common symbolic phrase “signed into law.” Put that machine to bed for important matters

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

Feel free to challenge it.

OLC released this in 2005, "Whether the President May Sign a Bill by Directing That His Signature Be Affixed to It." Bottom line up front, it starts with "The President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law. Rather, the President may sign a bill within the meaning of Article I, Section 7 by directing a subordinate to affix the President’s signature to such a bill, for example by autopen."

https://www.justice.gov/file/494411/dl?inline=

This is what I was talking about before about the thousand years of precedent. Long before the Republic was even born, our predecessors did this, or the medieval version of it. Instead of actually affixing his seal, the King would direct his Chancellor to affix it for him. The bill was law. The English-speaking world has always been like this. Nothing crazy about it.

 

[Spartans9312]

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

This is what I was talking about before about the thousand years of precedent. Long before the Republic was even born, our predecessors did this, or the medieval version of it. Instead of actually affixing his seal, the King would direct his Chancellor to affix it for him. The bill was law. The English-speaking world has always been like this. Nothing crazy about it.

It's really hard for me to believe anyone thinks this one has any legs.

 

[Spartans9312]

It's really hard for me to believe anyone thinks this one has any legs.

They don’t care about it. What they want is for Biden to have to verbally discuss the pardons. He would not be able to in any detail. They can then say he wasn’t mentally competent and wasn’t making the decisions.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

They don’t care about it. What they want is for Biden to have to verbally discuss the pardons. He would not be able to in any detail. They can then say he wasn’t mentally competent and wasn’t making the decisions.

What this really is that President Trump is super butthurt that he was investigated for trying to stay in office by legal or illegal means. That's 100 percent what this is. Biden won't have to say a thing, and this will still go away because it's nothing. At most he'll release a statement saying he authorized those pardons. The reality is we don't really know that he didn't sign them by hand. That's also an assertion without evidence to support it.

 

[mcmurtry66]

They don’t care about it. What they want is for Biden to have to verbally discuss the pardons. He would not be able to in any detail. They can then say he wasn’t mentally competent and wasn’t making the decisions.

Be great if they deposed Biden. Just grilling him on fauci shit hunter. No idea who fauci is

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

The reality is we don't really know that he didn't sign them by hand.

That's a good point. It's another thing the prosecution would have to prove, unless the defense stipulated to it.

 

[Spartans9312]

What this really is that President Trump is super butthurt that he was investigated for trying to stay in office by legal or illegal means. That's 100 percent what this is. Biden won't have to say a thing, and this will still go away because it's nothing. At most he'll release a statement saying he authorized those pardons. The reality is we don't really know that he didn't sign them by hand. That's also an assertion without evidence to support it.

Once again they don’t care. Biden won’t say a thing but he also wouldn’t have a clue who he pardoned. The fact people can’t admit he wasn’t mentally competent to run the country is weird to me. Especially law and order republicans

 

[mcmurtry66]

Once again they don’t care. Biden won’t say a thing but he also wouldn’t have a clue who he pardoned. The fact people can’t admit he wasn’t mentally competent to run the country is weird to me. Especially law and order republicans

Cnn and the rest are finally admitting he was unfit. We knew for years