I seem to recall, not too long ago during Obama's administration, that there was a question as to whether or not an autopen, or a proxy signature, could be used to sign documents requiring the signature of the president to give force to legislation, executive orders, and whatnot.
It seems, since that time, that the autopen has been in regular use, through numerous administrations, to affix the "president's signature" to executive orders, and even signing bills into law. Recently, Speaker Johnson said that when he discussed the EO pausing the export of LNG with then president Biden, Biden insisted he never signed such an order. Now, many of us attributed that to Biden's failing cognitive ability, but what if, instead, it was because Biden was telling the truth, he never signed, or approved the use of a proxy signature, on that executive order?
Autopens have long been used to sign letters from the president to various individuals, and other mundane communications, but should their use be permitted at all or absent the executive being in direct communication with, and in the presence of neutral witnesses at both ends, the person who employs a proxy signature when we're talking about signing legislation presented by Congress or executive orders?
Were pardons signed with an atropine? Those of us who knew Biden’s cognitive issues also knew he could possibly be making decisions for the country. Democrats better hope they covered all of their tracks…
A fact is information without emotion.
An opinion is information shaped by experience.
Ignorance is an opinion without knowledge.
Stupidity is an opinion that rejects facts.
