Hopefully non-partisan topic: Can Biden's EO's be dismissed?

I know this can get political, but let's be honest, I think everyone can accept that Biden at some point in his Presidency had diminished capacity, or it was at least a very fair question to ask.

There are now reports that many if not the vast majority of his executive orders and other signatures were done by autopen, not hand signed.

Autopen goes back a long way, but has been used for things like fundraising letters, etc., not for official signatures for documents. As far as I know the autopen is NOT a legally binding signature for a President.

So the question becomes, if Biden did not hand sign an order or a bill, is it legally binding? Can an autopen signature make an EO or a bill legal and if it cannot then are those EOs and laws in fact null and void?

It's an interesting question with profound long term implications for the legality of Presidential action, but also politically as there are a lot of laws and EOs Trump would love to have voided outright, some of which he cannot easily reverse with his signature. One that comes to mind is the last minute order to restrict drilling, which is a one way street that you can limit but not expand as POTUS.

IMO if I were the Trump administration I'd challenge one of those EOs on the grounds that it was not hand signed by the POTUS and therefore was not authorized by him personally, and is thus null and void. It's worth a shot for them politically, and I see no real political downside to it in the long run, nor do I see a downside for the power of the office as every POTUS should be hand signing those bills and EOs. It's an abrogation of Presidential authority at best, and simple fraud at worst, for someone not the POTUS to sign an executive order or a bill delivered from Congress.

I hope they do pursue it, yes politically b/c I want to see some of those things voided, but primarily b/c we need to set a standard that a POTUS must be mentally competent to hold office. OF course I think people hiding his condition should arguably be prosecuted, but Biden pardoned most of them before he left office.

Though if those pardons were done with an autopen.... ;)

Seems like if you can overturn will because of non compos mentis you could overturn unilateral presidential actions

I suspect any effort to void any of the auto signatures would bring out a bevy of lawyers and the case would have to wend it's way thru every court at lest twice before it wound up in front of the SCOTUS. I hope that if they do take such action, that they manage to throw all the pardons out the window.

Executive orders can be rescinded by the new administration at any time. Thee would be no point to challenge an EO.

A statute is different than EO and can not be easily dismissed.

However if a law was autopenned and not signed there could be a legal argument to its validity. But of course laws were passed by Congress. Including appropriations so whether a law was signed by a majority of democrats (the VP casts a vote for a tie) or Republicans, I’d think the law would be followed

It would be a dangerous precedent to question the authenticity of a presidential signature on these grounds. GOP has the White House, the House and the Senate.

I am not sure it is an issue.

Agree on EO. However, the auto pen was used to issue the pardons as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKHistory

Executive orders can be rescinded by the new administration at any time. Thee would be no point to challenge an EO.

A statute is different than EO and can not be easily dismissed.

However if a law was autopenned and not signed there could be a legal argument to its validity. But of course laws were passed by Congress. Including appropriations so whether a law was signed by a majority of democrats (the VP casts a vote for a tie) or Republicans, I’d think the law would be followed

It would be a dangerous precedent to question the authenticity of a presidential signature on these grounds. GOP has the White House, the House and the Senate.

I am not sure it is an issue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKHistory

Executive orders can be rescinded by the new administration at any time. Thee would be no point to challenge an EO.

---

Not exactly true. Mostly true, but there are exceptions.

First, some EOs are not easily, or at all reversed. Biden's move to prevent offshore drilling for example was empowered under a law where the POTUS can increase restrictions, but cannot loosen restrictions, so the EO cannot be reversed as with a typical EO.

Second, there are things like pardons, which also cannot be reversed. Not that I care to go after the Biden family, despite the obvious corruption to foreign entities which has gone on for over a decade now at the highest levels, but it is a legal question.

Third, there are things like these spending contracts, which are done by Executive action like Biden contracting for EV vans for USPS, where the contracts have now been issued. That is very difficult to reverse by EO, but if the original order itself is invalid that may change the contract obligations of the government. So there are impacts beyond just reversing even reversible EOs.

One could argue it's a dangerous precedent, but it is more dangerous than having a POTUS who isn't aware of what is being signed by his office or a POTUS who isn't mentally competent?

I'm more concerned with the fact that a lot of federal actions were taken without a democratic process, acted on by people who were not elected, and who were hiding the fact that the POTUS was only somewhat aware of what was being done. If ever there were a threat to democracy in this country surely that is it, and evidence of it may be that he didn't actually sign a lot of these documents.

I presume the reason to not legally challenge it is that Biden will no doubt swear he signed and was aware of everything, so there's no point, but I thought it an interesting legal question.

In the real world it could be a real issue, even if the signatory swore he intended to sign something, but used an autopen for example to do so.

FWIW the law on signatures is interesting in its own right. It does not have to be your name particularly at common law, just your "mark". Tell that to all the people who require your signature and it won't work, but it is the case from ye days of olde.

I am almost sure that most documents can still be signed with an X if the X is notarized, or if it is cosigned by a spouse. I do KNOW that if a voter requests a mail in ballot, they can sign both the return envelope and the voting ballot, if the signatures are co signed by a responsible adult.

Second, there are things like pardons, which also cannot be reversed. Not that I care to go after the Biden family,

What about Fauci?

Oh, in an ideal world I would prosecute Hillary, Biden, Trump, whoever deserved it. As a nation we have too long excused rank levels of corruption, from Hillary destroying documents and devices under subpoena to Biden's over the top obvious corruption, and I'm sure many GOP people fit that model as well.

The reality is that the political cycle is such that if you focus on that, you will win the battle but lose the war, so the best answer is to focus on the future, not the past.

The outcome of that is that we end up with extremely corrupt politicians at the highest levels of government. The fraud and abuse and now outright bribery even by foreign entities is beyond measure.

Trump raised the point:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...ed-via-autopen

He did, to his credit, say he thought it meant the pardons in particular were void, but that it would be up to a court.

Honestly as I've thought about it, maybe a legal challenge isn't bad. There are some negatives to that precedent of questioning whether a POTUS signed something, but I think they are less bad than the negatives of a POTUS who is possibly incompetent and having things signed by autopen by someone not even elected to the office, possibly without the POTUS' knowledge or understanding.

Short version: better to have these kinds of legal fights in the future than to have a mentally incompetent PResident.

I know we have lawyers on here so I am probably going to open mouth and prove myself a fool...

But in my role as CEO of my company there are multiple documents we execute that require my "wet" signature. Every real estate transaction. Every payer contract with an insurer, agency, and specifically medicaid.

I cannot imagine an Executive order does not rise to the leve of a contract and require an in person wet signature. For sure with a Pardon.

This autopen question is interesting. I can see situations where using it could be valid, but for a Presidential pardon? Nope, not buying that, it just doesn't sound right. AND: this also takes us back to the original questions regarding the pardons in question, i.e. how in the world do you pardon someone that hasn't been charged with a crime? If they haven't committed a crime, then WHY would they need a Presidential pardon?

Sleepy Joe claimed he did it to prevent the Donald from bringing retribution type legal action against those innocent folks that were pardoned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VirginiaCat

I know we have lawyers on here so I am probably going to open mouth and prove myself a fool...

But in my role as CEO of my company there are multiple documents we execute that require my "wet" signature. Every real estate transaction. Every payer contract with an insurer, agency, and specifically medicaid.

I cannot imagine an Executive order does not rise to the leve of a contract and require an in person wet signature. For sure with a Pardon.

---

This is where I'm at. Some documents can be e-signed, but some things must be wet signed. Like you I would think anything ordered by the POTUS should be wet signed.

THe autopen was created and used for things like signing the White House christmas cards, not as an "official" signature of the PResident as I understand it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

This is where I'm at. Some documents can be e-signed, but some things must be wet signed. Like you I would think anything ordered by the POTUS should be wet signed.

THe autopen was created and used for things like signing the White House christmas cards, not as an "official" signature of the PResident as I understand it

---

President trump makes it a point of signing a very large portion of his EOs on air and he makes it a point to sign them with a flourish on air and also makes it a point to hold the binder open and displays it in a 180 degree view for the occupants of the OO and the camera view as well. I have been wondering why he makes such a bit of pomp of the signing, and I am beginning to wonder if it is being done for a specific PURPOSE.

I may be wrong on this, but I'm thinking that an autopen can legally be used to sign documents if the president gives verbal permission. Where you get into a can of worms with that though is, how do you prove he didn't give the orders to sign them. Some of the orders that were signed when he was out of the country on vacation might be in play though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKHistory

Executive orders can be rescinded by the new administration at any time. Thee would be no point to challenge an EO.

A statute is different than EO and can not be easily dismissed.

However if a law was autopenned and not signed there could be a legal argument to its validity. But of course laws were passed by Congress. Including appropriations so whether a law was signed by a majority of democrats (the VP casts a vote for a tie) or Republicans, I’d think the law would be followed

It would be a dangerous precedent to question the authenticity of a presidential signature on these grounds. GOP has the White House, the House and the Senate.

I am not sure it is an issue.

---

I would suggest it is a far more dangerous precedent to allow autopsy signatures on EO, bills, statutes, or any official document. The potential for fraud is too severe. I could accept if the president had a physical disability which limited his ability to physically sign however that isn't the case here. A true signature.verifyies the President at least saw, and theoretically read the document. Anybody could autopsy with his knowledge

DJT had a presser today right after his talking to the press about the stock market, and he went to the oval office to sign about 15 E and Os and once again every time he signed one he held the signed document up for the press to see. Earlier I said that was part of a plan and today he let the cat out of the bag. He started talking about the bumbling Biden and whether he was signing the docs or were they done by auto pen, and if Joe had to use the AP why couldn't he hold a pen to make his mark? If he could not make the AP work, who was pushing the button to sign the Docs. He is going after the Biden administration for fraud. jmho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_bgblue

DJT had a presser today right after his talking to the press about the stock market, and he went to the oval office to sign about 15 E and Os and once again every time he signed one he held the signed document up for the press to see. Earlier I said that was part of a plan and today he let the cat out of the bag. He started talking about the bumbling Biden and whether he was signing the docs or were they done by auto pen, and if Joe had to use the AP why couldn't he hold a pen to make his mark? If he could not make the AP work, who was pushing the button to sign the Docs. He is going after the Biden administration for fraud. jmho

---

I can live with that in this case. I do think there are risks to that challenge, but I don't think they can be worse than having a POTUS who is mentally incompetent and incapable of holding the office. More and more people are admitting he wasn't competent, and if he wasn't competent then he had no power as POTUS to take contractual action.

It's no different than someone who is out there buying and selling things and then is ruled mentally incompetent, or if Vegas gets a guy drunk then takes his money. You must be competent to contract, and surely the POTUS deserves to have that be at the most stringent levels of standard.