|
Author
|
Topic: Autopens in the news: Presidential autopens
|
Aztecdoug
Member Posts: 1327
From: Huntington Beach
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 01-03-2013 12:13 PM
   
There are some interesting stories about the autopen cropping up in the news today. The reason is because our president just signed some legislation in Washington DC while on vacation elsewhere.One article says many presidents going back in time have used the device. The New York Times says only our current president has ever used it. Not trying to be political, it is just interesting to see our arch nemesis make it to the news. |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 1402
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 01-03-2013 12:15 PM
I'm surprised that's legal! |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 25983
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-03-2013 12:21 PM
According to ABC News, "a 2005 legal study commissioned by former President George W. Bush determined that use of the autopen is constitutional but acknowledged the possibility that its use could be challenged." Here's the 29-page legal finding [via Politico]. This shouldn't be too surprising to long-time space collectors, as astronauts have used the autopen to sign legal documents, including customs declaration forms (albeit the necessity of such forms was questionable). |
spaceman1953
Member Posts: 920
From: South Bend, IN United States of America
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 01-03-2013 10:03 PM
That is just WRONG!The papers could be transmitted to him on Air Force One and then he could sign on the plane and the paper could just stay with him or his military aide until they got back to DC. Or they could be "courier-ed" back, if there was some urgent need to do that! But I think using the autopen for his legal signature is wrong, but I still gotta go read that legal opinion! Gives the Rush Limbaugh-wannabees something to talk about... |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 1887
From: Toms River, NJ,USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 01-04-2013 09:42 AM
Not a lawyer, but how is using an autopen different from having a secretary sign for a person? |
schnappsicle
Member Posts: 91
From: Houston, TX, USA
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted 01-04-2013 09:51 AM
Signing for a person is one thing, signing a bill into law using autopen is something quite different. I'm no lawyer either, but I can't see how that can be legal. Perhaps he signs it by hand when he returns to the office. That's the only way any of this would make sense to me. |
Glint
Member Posts: 659
From: New Windsor, Maryland USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 01-04-2013 10:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by spaceman1953:
The papers could be transmitted to him on Air Force One...
And add even more to the man's already ludicrous carbon footprint? Why not just use a portable signing pad, like those employed by pharmacies or delivery truck drivers to verify receipt of the goods? |
Steve Zarelli
Member Posts: 263
From: Upstate New York, USA
Registered: Mar 2001
|
posted 01-04-2013 10:47 AM
quote:
Originally posted by spaceman1953:
The papers could be transmitted to him on Air Force One and then he could sign on the plane...
Paying a few hundred thousand $$$ to carry a piece of paper? Isn't the deficit high enough?  |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 25983
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-04-2013 11:02 AM
quote:
Originally posted by schnappsicle:
I'm no lawyer either, but I can't see how that can be legal.
A 29 page explanation as to why it is legal can be found linked earlier in this thread, as prepared by the U.S. Justice Department. In a nutshell, among other reasons, when the Constitution was written (establishing the President must sign a bill into law), a legal signature did not require the signee to actually apply the ink to paper. He could designate someone else to sign for him or have his seal applied instead. |
mikepf
Member Posts: 336
From: San Jose, California, USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 01-04-2013 11:38 AM
Oh great, now if a bill turns out to be a disaster, he can deny that he signed it! |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 25983
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-04-2013 12:59 PM
Realize you were probably replying in jest, but no, in the eyes of the law, he cannot.It is interesting though, from both a societal and collector viewpoint, how much importance we seem to assign a scribble of ink. In some ways we assign more value to the marking than we do the man (or woman, or in this case machine) that applied it... |
mikepf
Member Posts: 336
From: San Jose, California, USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 01-05-2013 12:13 AM
Yes, I was joking. And yes, I also agree that the interest a sqiggle of ink can command for us is most interesting to think about. At least for me, my attitude has evolved quite a bit over time. As it is now, for my personal collection, only the signatures I've gotten personally have emotional meaning to me. My interest in an autograph is in the fact that the signature represents a personal conmnection between the signer and myself. That someone who I admire so much would take a moment, sign the item, exchange a few words, shake my hand, and maybe pose for a picture puts all the meaning and value in that blob of ink. That moment of personal contact, either on a space photo, or a Congressional bill, cannot be mechanically reproduced. |
advertisement