No, the President must have exerted his authority by a recorded command to do so, be it video or document. It's like using a gun to shoot people. There must be positive control and responsibility. Otherwise, what proof is there that it is not a forgery? An autopen is only a forgery machine.
The autopen may be legal but The President must be competent and in his right mind.
Which is to say, the autopen is a giant distraction. There's no "may be legal" to it, an autopen signature is every bit as binding as any other signature. What matters, for any signature, whether manual or autopen, is whether the signer knew what they were signing.
Or whether the 'signer' - the person who used the autopen - is in fact the person who the autopen signature represents.
For a lawful, legal sign, it must be a) person who the autopen represents using the autopen AND they have to be competent and responsible for what they sign, or b) the person using the autopen must be lawfully authorized to use it on behalf of the person who it represents, who still must know what use they are authorizing and for what.
I don't think its lawful for a president to just say to some staff, you just use the autopen for whatever you want.
Here is the gaping hole in your theory.
The autopen may be legal but The President must be competent and in his right mind.
Hear hear!
I would like to associate myself with our esteemed Fren's remarks.
I second fren
Thank you Uncle Fester.
That is high praise coming from you Fren.
No, the President must have exerted his authority by a recorded command to do so, be it video or document. It's like using a gun to shoot people. There must be positive control and responsibility. Otherwise, what proof is there that it is not a forgery? An autopen is only a forgery machine.
GREAT to point this minor BUT SALIENT point out that will have EXTREME CONSEQUENCES when everything comes out!!!!!!!!
I betcha' right now there are quite a few stomachs being emptied and NOT in a nice way either!!!!!...
Which is to say, the autopen is a giant distraction. There's no "may be legal" to it, an autopen signature is every bit as binding as any other signature. What matters, for any signature, whether manual or autopen, is whether the signer knew what they were signing.
Or whether the 'signer' - the person who used the autopen - is in fact the person who the autopen signature represents.
For a lawful, legal sign, it must be a) person who the autopen represents using the autopen AND they have to be competent and responsible for what they sign, or b) the person using the autopen must be lawfully authorized to use it on behalf of the person who it represents, who still must know what use they are authorizing and for what.
I don't think its lawful for a president to just say to some staff, you just use the autopen for whatever you want.
The President must authorize it.
Joe couldn't find his way out of the bedroom closet.