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

[Marvin the Martian]

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

Why would Lincoln having surrogates sign pardons be nonsense? Do you know what Lincoln's stated desires were?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Why would Lincoln having surrogates sign pardons be nonsense? Do you know what Lincoln's stated desires were?

Trying to void Biden’s pardon bc of auto pen is nonsense

 

[CO. Hoosier]

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.

That opinion is totally bizarre. Besides it being contrary to the express language of Article I Section 7, it assumes the drafters were unaware of the 1000 years of precedent goat keeps mentioning. If the drafters wanted to follow the common law, they wouldn’t have written the constitution as they did. Importantly, the very next section (concerning resolutions etc) the drafters spoke about approval, not signature. Notably also , the drafters didn’t mention signature regarding pardons.

Push comes to shove and I knock the shit out of that 30-page opinion in 4 pages. .

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

That opinion is totally bizarre. Besides it being contrary to the express language of Article I Section 7, it assumes the drafters were unaware of the 1000 years of precedent goat keeps mentioning. If the drafters wanted to follow the common law, they wouldn’t have written the constitution as they did. Importantly, the very next section (concerning resolutions etc) the drafters spoke about approval, not signature. Notably also , the drafters didn’t mention signature regarding pardons.

Push comes to shove and I knock the shit out of that 30-page opinion in 4 pages. .

Challenge it and become a MAGA hero. If you win.

 

[Bub_rub]

That opinion is totally bizarre. Besides it being contrary to the express language of Article I Section 7, it assumes the drafters were unaware of the 1000 years of precedent goat keeps mentioning. If the drafters wanted to follow the common law, they wouldn’t have written the constitution as they did. Importantly, the very next section (concerning resolutions etc) the drafters spoke about approval, not signature. Notably also , the drafters didn’t mention signature regarding pardons.

Push comes to shove and I knock the shit out of that 30-page opinion in 4 pages. .

Jesus, what have we come to? That we’re having so many of these conversations is absolutely horrifying. That some of you willingly carry every drop of water for this is effing surreal . Add auto pen to the list of b*llshit you had never thought about — not once — before this administration decided to assail all of our government’s norms. That list mostly includes crap that gets us no closer to leaner and more effective government or balanced budgets. 80% of their agenda will fail in court and the rest can apparently be undone with EOs, including the few good ideas they’ve had.

 

[BradStevens]

Auto pen schmauto pen. An auto pen signature is not any different than my paralegal signing my name. The are specific rules about using facsimiles and copies in lieu of original material.

Whose rules? Doesn't the President as the leader of the Executive Branch get to make the rules for how he will affix his signature? Is there a law forbidding the use of autopen or the requirement for a handwritten signature?

 

[BradStevens]

I meant once he presents the pardon in court, the burden shifts back to the prosecution. I do not accept that the autopen makes the document inadequate as proof of the pardon.

Of course it doesn't.

 

[BradStevens]

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

Isn't it funny how few lawyers tell war stories about all those times they were wrong?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Challenge it and become a MAGA hero. If you win.

Ahh. I knew MAGA would creep in. Do you take this position because it makes sense, or because you are so anti-Trump?

This has nothing to do with MAGA.

 

[BradStevens]

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.

Show me where the Constitution requires a signature for a pardon. I'll spot you the provision:

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

There is a requirement that the President "sign" a bill into law in Article 1, Sec. 7. So the fact that a specific reference to a signing in the document in another place, but not here, is good textual evidence that Art. II, Sec. 2 does not require a signature.

Historical precedent has already been provided.

I can't think of a structural argument other than the one I outlined above re separation of powers on who determines how a pardon is issued--a core Presidential power. In fact, there's a DOJ opinion from the Bush administration that finds the use of autopen legitimate even for the Art. 1, Sec. 7 signing requirement.

Doctrinally, In Re De Puy (1869) is the only one close, and it says that once issued, a pardon may not be revoked: “The law undoubtedly is, that when a pardon is complete, there is no power to revoke it, any more than there is power to revoke any other completed act.”

I'd win 9-0 and might get you sanctioned.

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

ETA: I didn't include prudential arguments which would just be gilding the lily.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I meant once he presents the pardon in court, the burden shifts back to the prosecution. I do not accept that the autopen makes the document inadequate as proof of the pardon.

Since a pardon need not be a signed document, what does the presence of an auto-penned signature add to your argument?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Whose rules? Doesn't the President as the leader of the Executive Branch get to make the rules for how he will affix his signature? Is there a law forbidding the use of autopen or the requirement for a handwritten signature?

Affixing a signature is one thing. Signing a document is a different thing.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Show me where the Constitution requires a signature for a pardon.

It doesn’t. My argument about a pardon is how would a defendant who claimed the benefit of a pardon prove that there is one?

 

[BradStevens]

It doesn’t. My argument about a pardon is how would a defendant who claimed the benefit of a pardon prove that there is one?

Judicial notice.

Pardons are published in the Federal Register.

44 U.S.C. § 1507 explicitly states that the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Judicial notice.

Pardons are published in the Federal Register.

44 U.S.C. § 1507 explicitly states that the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed.

Well, that makes the pardon/auto pen business moot.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Ahh. I knew MAGA would creep in. Do you take this position because it makes sense, or because you are so anti-Trump?

This has nothing to do with MAGA.

Your position on this is extreme and only given any credence among MAGAs. They were all over this for a couple days in social media. Now they’re all about impeaching judges for decisions they don’t like and defending their new hero, Musk, from the mean media, fake news, and libtards/shitlibs. They’ll move on to something else to be outraged about. It changes almost daily. It’s hard to keep up with the grievances and hatred.