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.
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.