- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Can any decent attorney (not AggieHank or SFP) give opinion on autopen
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:04 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:04 pm to AggieHank86
Did Biden sign such an order? Seems that woild be an easy one to prove if so.
1
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:07 pm to RohanGonzales
quote:An AG Opinion is not dispositive by any means, but they are considered to be fairly persuasive.quote:So those get tacked right onto the end of the Constitution?
Because a 2005 AG Opinion disagrees with you.
quote:No. I cite it in specific response to the poster who asserted that autopens signature on legislation is automatically invalid. Earlier in the thread, I addressed the question of "authorization" in some detail.
Did that opinion have anything to say about WHO was operating the autopen?
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:08 pm to AnotherWin4LSU
We do not know. But, it is difficult to see a Court ruling that a Presidential signature through autopen, or anything else, is invalid. Surrogate signing apparently is fine, as well. So even if it could be shown that Biden had nothing to do with the autopen it still would not rise to the level of even considering that the signature is invalid.
What would be necessary, at a minimum, would be that Biden was not informed and/or never gave his consent. Not sure that would even do it.
What would be necessary, at a minimum, would be that Biden was not informed and/or never gave his consent. Not sure that would even do it.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:20 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
We were already concerned about 'not being elected'. He was installed anyway.
Touché
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:23 pm to captainFid
The Can o' Worms potential this investigation's allegations presents is monumental.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:26 pm to Penrod
quote:
He gave the best answer.
OP probably can't follow it, tbh.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:39 pm to udtiger
What's the cabinets motivation to invoke the 25th?
There is none.
There is none.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:40 pm to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
What's the cabinets motivation to invoke the 25th?
There is none.
It was written with the presumption that people would put country above party/power.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
To argue the autopen signatures are invalid, you'll be arguing a Constitutional violation, which will be difficult when there is a set remedy in the document for such an issue (the 25th Amendment).
So anyone with access to the autopen can sign whatever documents they want without the president's knowledge and it's legal as long as no one brings up the 25th. This must be lawyer logic, because it's certainly not common sense.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:41 pm to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
What's the cabinets motivation to invoke the 25th?
There is none.
Kind of like what's the motivation of Congress to impeach/remove a President when they're from the same party.
It's just one of those limitations of the Constitution that can only be corrected with an Amendment.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:41 pm to udtiger
But we're talking about a Biden cabinet
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
Republicans told Nixon to resign.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:43 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
So anyone with access to the autopen can sign whatever documents they want without the president's knowledge and it's legal as long as no one brings up the 25th. This must be lawyer logic, because it's certainly not common sense.
No the remedy there would be the President stepping in, revoking the act if necessary. None of that happened with Biden.
The underlying argument as to why Biden didn't "step in", is based in his mental incapacity. That's why the 25th becomes the issue in this discussion.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:45 pm to CC
quote:Why would a president sign an AG Opinion?
Any bill or legislation has to be hand signed. Autopen is for Chrismas (sic, Christmas) cards and political correspondence.quote:Did Biden sign such an order? Seems that woild (sic, would) be an easy one to prove if so.
Do you have any governing authority for this assertion ... or just blowing smoke? Because a 2005 AG Opinion disagrees with you.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:47 pm to LegendInMyMind
quote:
original Heritage Foundation investigative piece that alleges to have found that the only document Biden actually signed himself was the paperwork that pulled him from the presidential election.
Not even on any form of letterhead... Quite literally any of us could've recreated this is MS Word.
quote:
That simply isn't true in anyone's reality.
Oof. They aren't sending their best, these days.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:48 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:You are conflating two distinct hypothetical scenarios.
So anyone with access to the autopen can sign whatever documents they want without the president's knowledge and it's legal as long as no one brings up the 25th. This must be lawyer logic, because it's certainly not common sense.
In one case, POTUS has capacity, but staff "forges" his signature by using the autopen without his authorization. In the other, POTUS lacks capacity, and it thus just does not matter whether he purported to "authorize" anything.
The 25th only comes into play in the second scenario.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:50 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
POTUS lacks capacity, and it thus just does not matter whether he purported to "authorize" anything.
The 25th only comes into play in the second scenario.
Only if it is in the usurping band of marauders posing as a Cabinet's interests to self-identify their fraud.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:52 pm to VoxDawg
Even Laura Loomer was all over this at the time:
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:54 pm to AnotherWin4LSU
I think the answer is clearly yes. You’d have to make the case that the signature was made by someone who is not only mentally incapacitated, but coerced into signing. Or perhaps auto signed without the signee’s knowledge or consent.
But that would hold for any signature
But that would hold for any signature
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 3/10/25 at 1:56 pm to VoxDawg
quote:The matter at issue was about his campaign and thus not official US government business, so there would have been no reason for it to be printed on presidential stationery. In fact, it would arguably have been improper for Biden to communicate about his campaign on official governmental stationery.
Even Laura Loomer was all over this at the time (the Biden "drop out" letter not being on official presidential stationery).
A case could be made that perhaps it should have been printed on official campaign stationery, I suppose.
This post was edited on 3/10/25 at 2:03 pm
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News