Auto pen

Biden isn't there. That's the entire point.

So what is the game plan if any of these are to be overturned? How can one retroactively diagnose incompetence? Unfortunately, I don’t see how anything positive comes from this unless someone admits that they forged pardons without authorization. It might be time to move on to things with more attainable outcomes.

quote:

---

So what is the game plan if any of these are to be overturned? How can one retroactively diagnose incompetence? Unfortunately, I don’t see how anything positive comes from this unless someone admits that they forged pardons without authorization. It might be time to move on to things with more attainable outcomes.

---

They will not be overturned.

Before going into the reasons why I'll cite SFP and the birthright citizenship SCOTUS argument/case. They were never going to overturn birthright citizenship. The next time anyone complains about a "living document" justice remember the birthright citizenship argument. Call it textualist or originalists, or whatever- as written the birthright citizenship could only be overturned by "living document" justices, which most of us hate anyway.

So....
A) Biden was never declared incompetent, as noted above.
B) To do that there is a political process called impeachment, not a judicial one.
C) The backstop to that if he had been medically ruled incompetent (not politically or judicially) called the 25A
D) The constitution is very clear on executive powers (as long as not named Trump).

So when those non-living document justices look at the facts where Congress never even attempted impeachment and the medical facts were covered up and he was not declared incompetent by any means, his executive power to pardon... even if by extending his authority by auto pen... can't be challenged after the fact.

I think Congress could have demanded he (and others) appear before them and forced his hand medically and forced his hand leading to impeachment or the 25A... but they didn't even try.

quote:

---

Biden simply says, “Yes, I authorized it.”

---

Biden cannot remember what he had for breakfast, so no, his stating that should not make it go away... I doubt much will come from it but pulling the curtain back and letting as many know as possible that there is/was a shadow government pulling the strings in that administration is the only way we might get some of this crap corrected.... Well, other than tearing it all down and rebuilding it...

It (D)epends.

quote:

---

Sleepy joe was out of town when the pardons were signed, and the pardons say “signed in Washington DC” that shows outright intent of deceit and misrepresentation…..

---

that's exactly what the auto pen is for. Presidential authority while not on federal grounds in the US.

quote:

---

they were lying from the get go about sleepy joes involvement in the pardons, he had no idea…..

---

yes, true. That's a whole other issue though. Yes, he was incompetent. But no one every truly challenged it. It was Congress' job to call out the liars. They did not do their job.

Johnson even admitted it. He admitted in an interview he was shocked by Biden's lack of cognition after a meeting in which Biden failed to remember signing a EO blocking the export of LNG.

But yet this comes out in an interview AFTER Biden is out of office. He damn sure wasn't the first representative or senator to witness this. The constitution says they have a duty to check the executive. Well, when an unelected person(s) is running the executive and they know it and don't say anything they did not do their duty.

Yes, they lied. Yes, they had a moral and ethical responsibility that they failed to do.

But congress had a moral, ethical, and constitutional DUTY to act. They CHOSE not to.

quote:

---

This is wrong. The 14th was never intended to give illegal alien babies citizenship. It was bastardized by shitty lawyers and stupid judges for political purposes. It was "living document" justices who gave us the illegal birthright bullshite. A strict textualist with an iq over 70 knows it was never intended the way it is used.

If a "textualist" thinks it gives illegal alien babies citizenship, then he is not a textualist. He's an idiot using a poor interpretation in Wong. A textualist would look at the law and the arguments of the people who wrote it, not a retarded judge's bad interpretation decades later.

---

I agree, it was never intended to be used for anchor babies. No way, no how.

However, I do not see it as a problem of interpretation. It was written poorly by a reconstruction government.

Yes, the shitty lawyers have taken way too far to suit their own purposes. But the way it was written opened the door for that.

I guess I'm talking about root causes (the way it was written) and side effects (the expansion of it's intent).

Is the use of “auto pen” even legal?

Is there precedent to this?

quote:

---

Is the use of “auto pen” even legal?

---

no idea. I don't think it's legality has ever been challenged though. So technically, until challenged (and the challenge succeeding) it is legal. Bush #2 inquired regarding signing a bill, but didn't use it to sign that bill so it never was challenged.

I see it as any other "remote" tool used by the president. Is the nuclear football legal? That is military command and control. Is it legal to use it if not sitting in the oval office, bunker, or situation room? Of course it is.

But who knows once the lawyers and biased judges get involved. My personal answer is depends on who is using it... Trump? Nope, not legal and that's him acting like a king. Biden? perfectly legal.

quote:

---

Is there precedent to this?

---

auto pen has been used by multiple presidents for signing things such as checks, memos, requests, etc. going back to Truman.

The first president to sign a bill with it was Obama I think. Of course no one challenged him; they should have. That was the Patriot Act extension which he later weaponized against Trump.

The use by Biden is, to put mildly, fricking insane in it's volume. Of course, that is because it was being abused. We all know that. But unfortunately no one in power bothered to try and check it.

So the question lies not with the use of the auto pen but in its abuse/misuse. You don't question a hammer as a tool until you bash someone's head in with it. You don't blame the gun, you blame the person who pulled the trigger.