re: Trump declares Biden’s pardons as VOID bc they were done by autopen

quote:

---

Why is the frick would The US Constitution have a law about auto-pen?

---

It doesn't. There is no prohibition on using auto-pen, or any specific method to institute pardons. They don't even appear to need to be written or "signed"

That was his point, as someone asserted

quote:

---

Autopen can’t be used for pardons.

---

Biden’s cognizance or lack thereof is certainly the better argument, but they are going to run into the 25th Amendment which specifically deals with the issue and it was never invoked.

I hope it is litigated to the Supremes just for such an interesting case law

quote:

---

Biden’s cognizance or lack thereof is certainly the better argument, but they are going to run into the 25th Amendment which specifically deals with the issue and it was never invoked.

---

Correct, which is why this will almost certainly remain inside the echo chamber and won't be tested in reality.

quote:

---

I hope it is litigated to the Supremes just for such an interesting case law

---

The path would be very interesting.

quote:

---

Special council Hur stated that "Biden to mentally incompetent to stand trial".

---

Which is a unilateral, idiosyncratic determination outside of the procedures of the 25A. That's the problem.

quote:

---

Then Biden should have no problem explaining his analysis that went into making them. Otherwise, no proof exists that he made the pardons.

---

Here is the thing: he doesn't have to.

Now, people will flail that I'm "defending" Biden here, but I'm only discussing Constitutional-legal analysis. As I said earlier, this is an area ripe for a Constitutional amendment to clean up the process/requirements (like, ironically, what the 25A did)

My sources say the preponderance of the evidence weighs heavier than the pillars of the defense can bare and under purview by our legal savants will crumble and Biden’s whole tenure might fall with it .

Biden didn’t sign the documents.

Bi de n prolly wasn’t even made aware of these documents who signed them who mashed the button a thousand miles away without consent?

Merrick Garland will be facing a SCOTUS subpoena in the near future and then all hell will break loose!

quote:

---

I don't think the invocation or non-invocation of the 25th amendment has anything to do with anything.

---

Why not?

When the Constitution is specific, it prevails.

There is a specific Constitutional provision regarding Pardons. There is a specific Constitutional provision regarding the competency of a President.

if they are not declared incompetent to stand office, their official acts stand.

quote:

---

Just because the 25th amendment wasn't invoked does not prevent his competency or lack thereof at the time of the pardons being questioned.

---

I think there is very little question that it does, and that is the issue the Courts are going to run into.

quote:

---

I don't think the invocation or non-invocation of the 25th amendment has anything to do with anything. Competency is questioned after the fact all the time.

---

Do you think if Congress passed a law about insurrection again, and then tried Trump in 2029, that they could invalidate his Presidential term 2025-2028 with a determination that he committed insurrection prior to 2024 and was ineligible to run?

You are assuming his pardons are reviewable by a court.

Haley Barbour pardoned a bunch of people, including killers, when he left office. Very controversial. Went to the Mississippi Supreme Court. Said no matter what, his pardon power was absolute and could not be reviewed by a court for any reason. WOuldn't be surprised if that is the case here.

quote:

---

When the Constitution is specific, it prevails.

There is a specific Constitutional provision regarding Pardons. There is a specific Constitutional provision regarding the competency of a President.

if they are not declared incompetent to stand office, their official acts stand.

---

I completely disagree with you. The 25th amendment is for the purpose of removing an acting president due to infirmity or incompetency. It is for the purpose of removing him. Just because he wasn't removed does not mean he was not incompetent. Again, interdiction statutes are for the purpose of having regular people deemed "incompetent" while living. Just because a person is not interdicted does not mean he was competent...and it doesn't prevent one from showing actions he took were invalid due to incompetency.

If an act was taken by Biden for which he had sole authority (and couldn't be ratified some other way), then if he lacked capacity, it is null and void and subject to challenge. Period.