I’ve had a couple of talks with Chris about the magic auto-pen. It has a history dating back almost a century (yes, WAY back in the NINETEENTH CENTURY! gah, I feel old…), and has been used by many Presidents over that time. Feel free to read up on it if you want to learn more about the historic use of it. Right now, it’s in the news because there’s concern that Joe Biden was not in control of the White House auto-pen when “he” signed several legally binding documents. This is a real concern.
The news, of course, is not reporting that concern as valid. Instead, it’s making noise that the concern Trump and others have is based on the pen itself. Since Trump doesn’t sign anything legally binding with the auto-pen, says the news, he believes it isn’t legal for anyone to use it for anything legally binding. While it is apparently true (per Fox and Karoline Leavitt) that Trump doesn’t use the auto-pen for anything important, it has historically been used for such things. When it’s done correctly, it’s not an issue. The auto-pen was created to make such things possible in a country that’s impossible to traverse in a single day (even now).
The real concern, though, is not the auto-pen itself. It’s the person behind the auto-pen. For a very long time, the very existence of the auto-pen was kept secret. Imagine enemies (foreign or domestic) getting their hands on such a thing! It’s been kept in secure space for just such reasons. The problem is, we don’t know for certain if Biden was actually cognizant of every use of the auto-pen. If he was, then it’s fine. We can be unhappy he used it to sign pardons and other important things when he could just have signed the paper, but it’s perfectly legal. On the other hand, if he wasn’t aware that his signature was being used, we have a problem. If Jill Biden, for example, “told” someone that Biden had said to use the auto-pen, that would be illegal, and the document so signed might not be legal. If Biden’s son, who apparently spent an awful lot of time in the Oval Office with his dad, were to have used it, that too would be illegal. Any documents signed under the auspices of a person NOT the President of the United States would be questionable at best, and most likely null and void.
I have strong feelings about the auto-pen. First and foremost, I can’t see any reason for it to be used for anything that’s legally binding. Pardons, laws, Executive Orders, whatever, all those should be signed by the President him (or her) self, by hand. The auto-pen might be used for signing form letters, accepting FedEx deliveries, and that sort of thing, but it should have no place when it comes to Important Stuff [tm].
Chris suggested the auto-pen is important for signing the kind of letters that go to parents when their child dies in battle. While I agree that would be a “legal” use for it, I don’t agree that it SHOULD be used. If our Presidents could sign all the death letters during WWI and WWII, those thousands of letters, then whomever is President today can sign those few (under a thousand a year) by hand. Imagine being the parent receiving a letter and knowing it could be written by an auto-pen. Chris figures most people will assume such a letter is hand written, and I feel it’s disingenuous to even suggest the use of the auto-pen because of that assumption. Regardless, with today’s ability to print things and move papers around the world relatively seamlessly, I cannot see any valid reason why the auto-pen should be in use. Stick it in the museum where it belongs, a relic of older eras.
We are a people who take stills and movies of everything, these days. Perhaps any paper signed outside of the Oval Office should be recorded, both still and moving record, and preserved in that way along with the paper in question. It would allow us to see, to affirm that the actual signature was created by the President, for the purpose of serving the American people. It would be a visual cue that the President serves us, not the other way around.
I did not know about the existence of the auto-pen until a few days ago. I didn’t know enough about the auto-pen until this week. Now, I feel like I know too much. How could something of this import been (allegedly) left in the hands of people (Jill Biden, Hunter Biden, other folks) who are NOT the President? I’m horrified. I’m even more upset that people on the Left seem to think it’s no big deal, EVEN IF Jill or Hunter used the auto-pen. After all, they posit, it was done in Pres. Biden’s name, so that makes it count, right?
I’m having a lot of trouble convincing myself lately that I’m not the idiot whisperer. I say that to myself multiple times a day. If I’m reaching a point where I might say something that could damage my livelihood, I whisper it to a trusted friend or family member, so they can help remind me. Ugh.
Comments
4 responses to “FBEL – The Auto-Pen”
Well said Lady
Absolutely correct on all fronts.
Just like a firearm, the machine itself is not the problem. The individual using the machine has the potential to use it for good or evil.
As to when it is OK to use, well, every person on the planet will have a different standard. One thing, I think everyone will agree with, is the person who’s signature is being written MUST be aware it is happening. In my personal opinion, that is non negotiable.
There are a lot of questions on what Biden actually was aware of during his tenure in the White House. One story has Mike Johnson as Speaker asking Biden about the pause on LNG EO he had signed recently, and Biden had no recollection of doing so. There are plenty more questionable actions that use of autopen would explain.
Given the autopen can be used without the knowledge and consent of the President by bad actors, and the obvious lack of mental acuity demonstrated during the previous administration, I support President Trump in questioning anything that cannot be verified as properly signed.
A long time ago in a USMC far away Commanders delegated signing authority. There were fairly strict (and documented) guidelines, and all such signatures were logged with a document number, timestamp, and justifying remarks.
Seems curious to me that there wouldn’t be similar rigor and governance around an autopen.
Oh, nm, they were scoundrels surrounded by scoundrels breeding more scoundrels. Oops.
We had one at USM in the 1980’s. The Alumni Association bought it to bulk-sign letters requesting donations. The president’s office even had his signature digitized so that it could be used to sign both printed and handwritten documents, mainly atta boy letters and requests for donations. Every document that ‘required’ his signature was signed, by him, with a real pen.