Today the President signed an extension on the Patriot Act using a device called autopen (the merits of the Patriot act are not of concern here, only the circumstances of its signing). The reason for this is, the President was in Europe at the time the bill was approved by Congress and ready for a the Presidents signature. According to Article I Section 7 regarding the passage of bills into Law it states:
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.
Article I Section 7 also states:
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Normally with this second section, there is more than sufficient time for the bill to be ferried to the President or the President to return for the President to sign it or veto the bill prior to the 10 day period expires. Or if desired the President could simply allow the 10 period to expire without his signature and the bill shall still become law.
But what makes this circumstance unique is timing and distance. The bill did not pass Congress until nearly near the end of the mandated expiration of the bill it was extending, and the President was not in Washington, D.C. to sign it into law. Time did not exist to accommodate the passage and signature.
So the question is as has been brought up by various pundits is, can the President have the bill “signed” into law with autopen when it is not his actual signature? I say yes to this question he can. The motivation around the Presidential signature to enact of law is not the signature itself but it is the agreement to the bill, which is shown by the signature. But this MUST also be tempered with circumstances, and not done for convenience. It also must be verifiable that the President did in fact authorize his signature to be affixed to the bill, through a locally generated authorization letter specifically authorizing this to be done for each specific signature. In other words the President must sign a specific piece of paper that carries the weight of the Office, notarized and time stamped to be able to track the time and intent of the signature to be placed and kept with the official record.
What is of importance is not was he the one physically signing the Bill, but the motivation of Executive concurrence. The autopen keeps in line with this idea in all aspects, provided it is used only under direction by the President in each specific case. If time is available this should not be the first choice, but if circumstances arise it should be acceptable. In today’s world the President is required to travel overseas at times. If an occasion where to arise that may delay his return to the United States, this is a means to keep the government functioning as intended. It also provides a means to maintain the Executive check on Congress. If a situation where to arise preventing the President from returning to the Capital, it may tempt Congress to pass Laws it would not otherwise be able to pass by using the absence and taking advantage of the 10 day requirement, to which it could not over-ride a veto. Another scenario may be while the President is overseas or otherwise out of the capital, and disaster, attack or other events occur which Congress quickly acts to pass appropriate legislation to react to the event, and delay may have a negative impact on the general good.
The autopen appropriately use is in accordance with the intent and meaning of the Constitution, in that it is the approval of the President which is important, not the nature of the actual signature itself. Though it should not be used as an everyday tool, in certain circumstances, such as this it is appropriate. But if time exists for the President to do so from the traditional self signature or using the 10 day period to allow a bill to pass, this is an acceptable means to ensure a law is properly enacted.
No comments :
Post a Comment