Did the Patriot Act actually expire?
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
June 27, 2011 3:23am CST
This one is definitely one for the courts to decide, we'll see how it turns out.
There is a machine in the White House called an "Autopen". It is a contraption that produces the president's signature. It's been used by many presidents, but only for "autographing" memorabilia and other unofficial documents.
Obama was in Europe when the Patriot Act extension hit his desk. He gave instructions for staff members to use the Autopen to sign the bill into law.
There are two matters of law here. Is what amounts to a facsimile of a president's signature sufficient? If so, does the president have to actually be present when he "signs" a bill into law?
I say it is nothing but another example of Obama's disdain for the office. He spent 2 years in the senate voting "present", apparently he doesn't even think being "present" is important.
But that's just my opinion. This is the kind of thing the courts were established to decide... It will be interesting to see how this one comes out.
http://beta.news.yahoo.com/obamas-signature-real-autopenned-122724800.html
3 responses
@knoodleknight18 (917)
• United States
28 Jun 11
Seems like the staff fell short of doing their job of getting it to him on time. Since it's the US Patriot Act, I hope they do rule against it and the bill expires. I'd like American's to have their rights back. Unfortunately. even if the signature is rejected. It can still be pushed through congress and back in action again.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
28 Jun 11
True, but since the Patriot Act had a "sunset date" they would have to daft a whole new bill and start from scratch. They couldn't just pass the old act back into law.
@knoodleknight18 (917)
• United States
28 Jun 11
They can basically copy and paste it all into a new bill.
I can understand it passing initially because it was a rush job to help the government combat terrorism. But it could be revised to keep what's needed without taking away our fourth, fifth and sixth amendment rights.
@dragon54u (31633)
• United States
27 Jun 11
I don't think there should be an autopen. If a bill is important enough to sign, the president should do it himself. The thing that really burns me is that he doesn't have time to sign a bill but he has time to travel the country and campaign for his re-election and golf every weekend. In fact, it seems he has spent very little time actually doing the job that the voters gave him.
