{"id":3602,"date":"2025-03-19T08:53:55","date_gmt":"2025-03-19T15:53:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/?p=3602"},"modified":"2025-03-19T21:45:48","modified_gmt":"2025-03-20T04:45:48","slug":"the-autopens-history-presidential-use-and-the-legal-validity-of-joe-bidens-signed-documents","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/2025\/03\/19\/the-autopens-history-presidential-use-and-the-legal-validity-of-joe-bidens-signed-documents\/","title":{"rendered":"The Autopen\u2019s History, Presidential Use, and the Legal Validity of Joe Biden\u2019s \u201cSigned\u201d Documents"},"content":{"rendered":"
\r\n
\r\n \n
\"\"<\/a>
Photo: US Treasury Department check signing machine. Operated by J.L. Summers in 1918.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Wikipedia: Autopen<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

An autopen (or signing machine) is a device used for the automatic signing of a signature. Prominent individuals may be asked to provide their signatures many times a day, such as celebrities receiving requests for autographs, or politicians signing documents and correspondence in their official capacities. Consequently, many public figures employ autopens to allow their signature to be printed on demand and without their direct involvement.<\/p>\n

21st-century autopens are machines programmed with a signature subsequently reproduced by a motorized mechanical arm.<\/p>\n

Given the similarity to the real hand signature, a use of an autopen allows for plausible deniability as to whether a famous autograph is real or reproduced, thus increasing the perception of the personal value of the signature by the recipient. However, known or suspected autopen signatures are also vastly less valuable as philographic collectibles; legitimate hand-signed documents from individuals known to also use an autopen usually require verification and provenance to be considered valid.<\/strong><\/span>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>
\nThe controversy surrounding the use of the autopen\u2014a device that mechanically replicates signatures\u2014has reignited, with former President Joe Biden at the center of scrutiny. Critics, including President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson, have raised questions about the legitimacy of Biden\u2019s autopen-signed documents, particularly executive orders and pardons issued during his term. This update explores the autopen\u2019s development, its limited use by previous presidents, and builds a well-reasoned case questioning the legal validity of Biden\u2019s autopen-signed documents, focusing on constitutional and procedural concerns.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Jim Davis @ American Thinker: Speaker Mike Johnson reveals why the Autopen scandal is a big deal<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

An interview with House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) reveals just one of many examples where Joe the Vegetable didn\u2019t even read the documents that bear his purported signature:<\/p>\n

MIKE JOHNSON: \u201cSir, why did you pause LNG exports? \u2026 Liquified natural gas is in great demand by our [European] allies. Why would you do that? Because you understand, we just talked about Ukraine. You understand, you\u2019re fueling Vladimir Putin\u2019s war machine, because they got to get their gas from him, you know.\u201d<\/p>\n

And he looked at me, stunned, and he said, \u201cI didn\u2019t do that.\u201d<\/p>\n

And I said, \u201cMr. President, yes you did. It was an executive order, like three weeks ago.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI didn\u2019t do that.\u201d And he\u2019s arguing with me.<\/p>\n

I said, \u201dMr. President, respectfully, can I, could I go out here and ask your secretary to print it out? We\u2019ll read it together. You definitely did that.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2026 He said, \u201cNo, no. You misunderstand.\u201d He said, \u201cWhat I did is I signed this thing to \u2014we\u2019re going to conduct a study on the effects of LNG.\u201d<\/p>\n

I said, \u201cNo, you\u2019re not, sir. You paused it. … This is doing massive damage to our economy, national security \u2026\u201d It occurred to me, Barry, he was not lying to me. He genuinely did not know what he had signed.<\/p>\n

And I walked out of that meeting with fear and loathing. Because I thought, we\u2019re in serious trouble. Who is running the country? Like, I don\u2019t know who put the paper in front of him, but he didn\u2019t know.<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Development of the Autopen<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The autopen\u2019s origins trace back to 1803 when British-American inventor John Isaac Hawkins patented the polygraph, a precursor to modern autopens. Thomas Jefferson, the third U.S. president, adopted this machine, which used a mechanical arm to replicate a signature. At the same time, the user wrote with a linked pen, calling it \u201cthe finest invention of the present age.\u201d Jefferson used it extensively to duplicate letters, marking the first known presidential use of a signature-replicating device. The technology evolved over the centuries, but the first commercially successful autopen emerged in 1942, developed by Robert M. De Shazo Jr. in response to a U.S. Navy request. De Shazo\u2019s machine used a motorized stylus to trace a signature matrix, driving an arm that could hold any writing instrument to produce a near-identical signature with even pressure\u2014a telltale sign distinguishing it from a human hand. By the mid-20th century, autopens became a staple in Washington, D.C., with De Shazo estimating over 500 in use across government offices by the 1960s, including Congress, the Senate, and the Executive Branch.<\/p>\n

Limited Use by Previous Presidents<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\"\"<\/a>
A Service Memory Certificate, autopen signed by Lyndon B. Johnson during the Vietnam era.<\/em><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Presidents have used autopens for decades, primarily for low-stakes tasks like signing correspondence or autographs, but their application to legally binding documents has been rare and often controversial. Harry Truman was the first to use an autopen for government work, though specifics are sparse\u2014likely for routine letters rather than legislation. John F. Kennedy also employed it, but again, mostly for non-binding items like photos or constituent mail. The first documented use of an autopen to sign legislation came under Barack Obama in 2011, when he authorized its use while in France to sign an extension of the Patriot Act, just hours before its provisions were set to expire. Obama used it again in 2013 to sign an extension of the Bush tax cuts while vacationing in Hawaii, avoiding the need to fly the bill to him overnight. These instances ignited debate among Republican leaders, who argued that an autopen might not meet the constitutional requirement for a president to \u201csign\u201d a bill into law under Article I, Section 7, especially since, in most legal settings, having another person\u2014or a machine like an autopen\u2014execute someone else\u2019s signature on a document is not technically legal without explicit authorization. However, a 2005 Department of Justice (DOJ) memo from George W. Bush\u2019s administration countered this, stating a president need not physically sign a bill if they direct a subordinate to affix their signature\u2014a ruling Obama relied on, though Bush himself avoided the device, choosing to fly back for emergency signings.<\/p>\n

Joe Biden\u2019s administration also used the autopen, though reportedly sparingly. A May 2024 CNN report noted Biden signed a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funding extension via autopen while in San Francisco, but the White House often went to great lengths to ensure physical signings\u2014like flying bills to South Korea in 2022 for a $40 billion Ukraine aid package. Despite this, the Oversight Project, an arm of the Heritage Foundation, claims that most of Biden\u2019s executive orders and pardons from 2021 to 2024 bore identical autopen signatures, contrasting with a different, possibly handwritten signature on his 2024 withdrawal letter.<\/p>\n

The Case Against the Legal Validity of Biden\u2019s Autopen-Signed Documents<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The controversy over Biden\u2019s autopen use centers on executive orders and pardons, including high-profile preemptive pardons issued on January 19, 2025, for the January 6 Committee, Dr. Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, Hunter Biden, and Jerry Lundergan. Trump has declared these pardons \u201cvoid\u201d on Truth Social, alleging they were signed by autopen without Biden\u2019s knowledge, a claim echoed by House Speaker Mike Johnson. Johnson, cited above, recounted Biden\u2019s apparent unawareness of signing an executive order pausing liquefied natural gas exports, suggesting unelected staff may have controlled the autopen. This raises a critical question: Are Biden\u2019s autopen-signed documents legally valid?<\/p>\n

Kaelan Deese, Washington Examiner: Were Biden\u2019s \u2018autopen\u2019 pardons legal? Trump says question should be \u2018up to a court\u2019<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

President Donald Trump suggested Monday that the legality of autopen-signed pardons should be decided by the courts, questioning whether former President Joe Biden\u2019s final clemency orders, including controversial preemptive pardons, are valid.<\/p>\n

In a Truth Social post, Trump said Biden\u2019s pardons, including those granted to members of the House Jan. 6 Select Committee such as former Reps. Liz Cheney (R-WY), Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), along with former White House chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley, were \u201cVOID\u201d because they were allegedly signed using an autopen, a mechanical device that replicates a signature.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe \u2018Pardons\u2019 that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT, because of the fact that they were done by Autopen,\u201d Trump wrote.<\/p>\n

He further alleged that Biden was unaware of the pardons, suggesting that those who executed them could be guilty of criminal conduct.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s claims followed a report by the Heritage Foundation\u2019s Oversight Project, which alleged that Biden used an autopen to sign \u201cnearly every document we could find\u201d during his presidency.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe gathered every document we could find with Biden\u2019s signature over the course of his presidency. All used the same autopen signature except for the announcement that the former President was dropping out of the race last year,\u201d the Oversight Project said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Constitutional Concerns:<\/strong><\/span> Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution requires the president to sign a bill for it to become law, but it does not specify that the signature must be handwritten. Article II, Section 2 grants broad pardon powers, with no explicit requirement for a written signature\u2014courts, like the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, have ruled that the Constitution imposes \u201cno such limitation\u201d on pardons. The 2005 DOJ memo further supports this, stating a president can direct a subordinate to affix their signature, as Obama did. However, a 2011 Syracuse University College of Law article by Terry L. Turnipseed argues that historical legal precedent, dating back to English and American common law, requires the principal (the president) to be present when a proxy signature is affixed for high-value transactions like legislation. Obama\u2019s 2011 autopen signing of the Patriot Act, authorized by phone from France, violated this \u201cpresence requirement,\u201d Turnipseed contends, rendering it unconstitutional. Biden\u2019s autopen use, if done without his direct oversight, could face the same challenge\u2014especially if he was not present or aware, as Johnson\u2019s anecdote suggests.<\/p>\n

Procedural and Cognitive Issues:<\/strong> <\/span>The Oversight Project\u2019s findings, amplified by Johnson, allege that Biden\u2019s identical autopen signatures on nearly all documents indicate a lack of personal involvement, raising questions about who controlled the autopen and what checks were in place. If Biden, amid documented concerns about his cognitive decline (e.g., public gaffes, frailty during 2024 debates), was not fully aware of what he was authorizing, this undermines the intent behind his constitutional duties. The DOJ\u2019s 2005 memo allows a subordinate to affix a signature, but only if the president has decided to approve the document. If unelected staff used the autopen without Biden\u2019s explicit direction\u2014as Missouri AG Andrew Bailey and Johnson suggest\u2014those actions could be void. For pardons, the lack of a constitutional writing requirement might protect them, but executive orders, which often carry the force of law, may not survive scrutiny if Biden\u2019s intent is unproven.<\/p>\n

\n

Joe Biden\u2019s White House Staff Secretary Neera Tanden has allegedly been outed as the one using Biden\u2019s autopen to sign important documents including pardons without Biden knowing about them. Will this cause the pardons to be void? pic.twitter.com\/6GD4aosjlF<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 \u2022 \u15f0IS\u1455\u157cI\u15f4\u15b4 \u2122 \u2022 (@4Mischief) March 19, 2025<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n