E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAn intrepid White House aide’s nail-bitten mission to board a transcontinental commercial flight and hand-deliver crucial national security legislation to the president before midnight WOULD have made a great subplot in the next Jason Bourne blockbuster.
Which is probably why the White House opted for an autopen instead.
Hill sources say there had been a plan to have a White House aide hand-carry legislation re-authorizing the Patriot Act to Europe, where President Barack Obama is traveling for G8 talks. But a delayed vote process meant that the bill might not have reached the signer-in-chief before the act expired at midnight.
So last night, the president made history by authorizing the first use of an autopen signature for a bill to become law.
At least one Republican lawmaker now says those robotic scratches of ink could set “a dangerous precedent” for constitutional shenanigans ahead.
Georgia Rep. Tom Graves -- who voted against the PATRIOT Act extension -- put his concerns in writing to the president today.
After quoting Article I, section 7 of the United States Constitution in a short letter, he then, politely, assigned the president homework.
He asked that Obama provide a "detailed, written explanation of your constitutional authority to assign a surrogate the responsibility of signing bills passed by Congress into law."
Graves may want an answer, but when Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was asked about “Autopen-gate and the Mystery of the Secret Signature” he said, “I haven't looked at the legality of it and therefore don't have an opinion to express on it.”
In 2005, the then Deputy Assistant Attorney General Howard C. Neilson, Jr., (who is getting a significant amount of Google play today no doubt) released an opinion that deemed the use of an autopen to sign a bill constitutional:
“We conclude that neither past practice nor previous opinions relating to the signing requirement of Article I, Section 7 foreclose reading that requirement in a manner that is consistent with the traditional common law understanding of ‘sign,’ with attorney general and Department of Justice opinions applying that understanding to statutory signing requirements, and with the settled interpretation of the related presentment and return provisions.”
But what IS an autopen?
Bob Olding, the owner of the Damilic Corporation, one of what he says are only two companies in the United States that make and sell the devices described it like this:
“There are basically two kinds that we provide. One is mostly mechanical and that is the old classic autopen. It has a large plastic wheel in it ... as that rotates between two levers it pushes the pen in the appropriate direction.”
They can cost anywhere from $2000 to $10000 and it’s another $175 to create each signature template that tells the machine what to do. The more expensive machines are automated and involve programming your handwriting into a computer.
When asked if he had sold a machine to the White House or possibly Sarah Palin, he said, “I couldn’t tell you if we did.” He keeps his client list very hush hush but said it includes large corporations, universities and political campaigns.
NBC's Kelly O'Donnell contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
Ditto Heads just won't give up...Like it's the first time this was ever done.....Unbelievable stupidity. This has been in place for 70yrs,Fox Lemmings.....
And how would George Washington have signed a bill??? So, because of modern technology the President gets to play in Europe while America struggles to get along. Maybe he should have come home after Joplin blew away like a real President would have.
George Washington would have signed it with a quill pen and it would take a month to sail back to the US. A G 8 summit is not playing, if he was not there you would complain about that. He is going to be president for six more years get over it.
floridamom1....Thanks for proving my point....Modern technology....70 yrs old?
Bill CT: The autopen has indeed been used for many decades, but I can't find any website where it was used to actually sign a congression bill. Just thought I'd let you know.
Too bad Feisty and Beverly have already made their hit and run for the day. I wanted to inform them that CNN also reported the story, OMG OMG OMG They've gone conservative over there too just like NBC.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/27/congress.patriot.act/
Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows !!! I don't like the Patriot Act, or the fact that these "Extensions" were signed by a MACHINE, in contravention to the Constitution !!! Of course, it was "W" who said the Constitution was "Just a damn piece of paper!!!", but I would have expected the Constitutional Scholar Obama to know better !!! Any one arrested under those "Extensions" could argue that they ARE NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND !!!
I don't consider myself to be anti or pro President Obama, though generally I support him on comment lines because it seems to me he gets a lot of undeserved criticism. But I do have to say, I don't like this signing bills into law with an auto-pen. I don't like it one bit. If the President intends to sign a bill I want it to come directly from his hand onto the bill. If Congress intends to send the President a bill for signing then they had damn well consider the fact that he'll be overseas representing the Nation on DayX so they need to get their a$$es in gear and get it to him before that.
I do disagree with ANDREW's opinion (post #25) that the President should be confined to DC in his either or scenario. Congress should have a schedule with the President's Office for the submission of bills for signing. Send a batch to him every couple of days unless there is an emergency of some sort. This signing of a bill via auto-pen just doesn't cut it. They are used for mass mailings with those 'oh so authentic' signatures from politicians or other well known people. Quite simply, I also feel that signing a bill this way negates the dignity of his Office and makes it feel we, the American people, don't rate the attention of his personal signature to laws that will affect all of us. Using the courier was a better idea in my opinion, and worth the expense.
Congress is the clear offender in this for not settling the problems before the President left and submitting the legislation for his signature. Myself, I don't consider the signature on that law to be valid as the President didn't sign it himself, and nowhere in the Constitution does it say he can use devices OR authorize a machine to duplicate his signature for the purpose of signing bills into law. That makes it a very simple "No-Go" in my opinion, Justice Dept eggheads be damned. They're probably the same ones who said torure was OK too.
Several of the comments posted here feature statements critical of President Obama which in and of themselves are nothing unusual. What sets them apart is the fact that many of these comments, which are clearly written by conservative Republican types, criticize Obama for adopting Republican-like policies which is silly considering the fact that said policies, had they been adopted by a Republican president, would have been praised. Instead, the authors take Obama to task for engaging in precisely the kind of activities which they would likely adore had it been a Bush or Reagen at the helm instead of President Obama. That being said, Obama's history of continuing Bush-era policies can't be easily denied, and for many Democrats this is a source of disagreement and disappointment. Nonetheless, several of the posts here are amazingly hypocritical and indicative of arrogance, stupidity and/or a combination of both on the part of the authors. The bottom line is that instead of giving Obama credit for right-wing actions he's being criticized by the very people who should be showering him with praise, revealing a significant level of hypocrisy which is unfortunately all too common among right-leaning Republicans. To engage in such contradictory behavior is very counter-productive and divisive; if the authors really cared about America they would express pleasure at seeing Obama carry on several of Bush's policies. Instead, they attempt to rub Obama's Bush-iness in the face of Democrats, apparently blissfully unaware of their own ridiculous hypocrisy and happy to ignore the successes Obama has enjoyed in pursuit of goals which Bush failed to realize during his presidency, the bagging of Bin Laden being a perfect example thereof. In short, the authors are massive hypocrites who make Republicans look bad by making the demonetization of Obama the priority rather than considering whats best for the nation. It is not too much of a stretch to imagine that if Obama said "Ice cream tastes good", they would immediately take the opposite position, criticizing Obama's love of vanilla and claiming that chocolate is the only acceptable flavor.
And if you check the facts, you'll find that President Bush made the choice NOT TO USE an autopen for legislation. The arguement here is not about the Patriot Act, it is about the method fo the signature being applied to a piece of legislation. From this point forward, how will anyone be able to verify the signature on documents? Is the next step signing documents that "someone else" knew he would approve of? WHat about signing legislation that is mundane and doesn't need to bother the president?
Bush used a crayon Cheney and Rove would not allow him to handle anything sharper as he might hurt himself.
Now Forrest, that's just funny.
Edit: Should have been "If Obama said VANILLA ice cream tastes good..."
Has anyone asked Scalia if an auto-pen is constitutional? After all, he knows that the founding fathers intended corporations to be individuals when they drafted the constitution! Did they intend all signatures to be made by quills? Only Scalia would know for sure.
Cant they just print the document out in Europe, sign it, and bring it back?
We're one step closer to the Terminator!!! Robots signing presidential decrees!!! Obama needn't feel threatened though. Robots have not learned to take vacations.
And knowing that the President was out-of-town, why didn't Congress simply make the needed wording changes to the bill? It's not like the world would end before the document could be flown to Europe and signed like it should have been.
You people are getting waaaaaay off track. Go back and read the article.
"Damilic Corporation"?? Really? Sounds Islamic to me.
Glad science has made it easier for DC to screw the american people out of freedoms and liberties under the false promise of more security...
"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
— Thomas Jefferson
One republican lawmaker... a dangerous precedent" for constitutional shenanigans ahead"... Anyone remember watergate...Iran-contra? These were republican constitutional shenanigans that were DIRECT Violations of the founding document of our country. Convenient memory, eh!
Auto pen is so spring training autographs. Why can't the President e-sign it?
Another faux controversy to help fill up the Faux News conspiracy hour. And this one may be even more pathetic than the 'Obama's not American' or the 'Obama's a closet Muslim' memes.
Another historical moment!!!
Once again the cons, Repugs, and Tea Baggers are trying to take us backwards, not forwards. Let's return everything to status quo 1787 and never progress. The INTENT of the Constitution is that the President give his approval to the legislation. In the 18th Century the way to express that was with his signature. In the 21st Century we can do that electronically. We do it everytime we sign for a package on the electronic tablet, or sign at the grocery store on the electronic keypad. Will all of you on the far right please join the present. It gets tiresome having you live in the past and then try to drag the rest of us back there with you.
That would be "backward" and "forward".
Wow ! In 1787, people either worked to make their food or went hungry.
The INTENT of of the Constitution is that the duly elected government officials would serve US.
Totally not shocked that he would snub the Constitution if it serves his preferences for the moment. I would be interested no know exactly how much "intel" would be lost between expiration and the time when OB wraps up his summer vacation and could come home to take care of business.
If our Pres can't sync his calendar with the legislative Branch, then we need another President.
I'm sure that by now Odumo has guzzled enough wine and beer that he doesn't remember what he has or hasn't signed. I hope he wasn't asked to put the date on it.
Does he think the American citizens are waiting for him to make his grand appearance back into our country? LOL We have managed for almost three years without him, we can surely last until a REAL president is elected.
As far as Odumbo using the autopen to sign his signature being Constitutionally legal, that is of no concern to him. He has defied and challenged our Constitution since he has been in office. Considering that he is a fraud and a liar and not a true natural born American citizen, his signature means nothing anyway.
When we get a real president in office again and Obama's true birth certificate is presented, showing he was born in Kenya as his grandmother said, EVERYTHING he has done should be eradicated and Obama should be imprisoned. Chance are that he was born in one of the mud and dung huts and his birth was never recorded. Babies are born there one day and die the next . It is no big deal to have no record of births.
If President Obama sneezes I'm sure Republicans will somehow argue it's further proof of his Marxist, Islamic, un-American qualities.
If the use of autopen is questionable, I guess this is the perfect piece of smelly legislation to use it on. Take this to court if you dare. Makes me chuckle.
This remark is tangential to the autopen kerfuffle, but since this is the ONLY story posted in the last two day by FR on Obama's trip to Europe, I'll have to make use of it.
I am outraged at the paucity of coverage of Obama's trip to Europe by the US (non-PBS) press! If it weren't for three very minor snafus, there probably wouldn't have been any coverage at all! It's a pity that Americans weren't given the privilege of seeing Obama speaking before Parliament in Westminister Hall (where, according to BBC News it took him 25 minutes to leave the Hall afterwards because of the press of the crowd wanting to shake his hand). Nor did they see a crowd of 50,000 in Dublin break into applause when Obama spoke of "the American Dream". (I suggest you look up a video of his speech - it was brilliant.) For a feel-good story, how about PM David Cameron and Pres. Obama flipping burgers at a barbeque at 10 Downing Street for veterens from Afghanistan? And Obama's presence at the G8 was very cost-effective, as it allowed him not only to contribute to the general deliberations, but also to meet one-on-one with eight major world leaders.
Of course, I realize that many American's xenophobia lead them to snear at the fact that most of the world loves Obama. But at least credit him with improving the US image around the globe!
I pity all those, like Rangewolf, who are denying themselves the pleasure of seeing America loved by the world. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. I guess Rangewolf can't wait for another "real" president, who spends months of his term-of-office clearing brush on his ranch!
Speaking of robotic autopens and such, did anyone stop to think that the person making the signature was robotic? Many clones are robotic, especially the Bush clones.
In all fairness, no one knows "constitutional shenanigans" better then a republican't.