Fanny Says: John Hancock Didn't Use an Autopen

Dear Fanny:

A strange thing happened a few weeks ago. Congress passed an extension of the Patriot Act while President Obama was in Europe. However, the White House announced the president immediately signed the bill into law.

How? The White House acknowledged Obama had not personally signed the measure, but had authorized the use of an "autopen" back in Washington. This was the first time an autopen had ever been used to sign legislation.

The autopen is a electronic device fitted with a template of person's signature. A mechanical arm, holding a pen, then reproduces the signature in ink on a letter or a document.

Politicians, government officials, business executives, movie stars, athletes and others have used autopens for decades to "sign" correspondence and autograph requests. While autopen signatures may look realistic, autograph dealers consider them as fakes not worth the paper they are written on. An autopen signature is no more genuine than a rubber signature stamp.

The Constitution says every bill passed by Congress shall be sent to the president and "if he approve he shall sign it..." The Obama administration cited a written opinion from George W. Bush's legal advisers that the president does not have to personally sign bills, but can authorize use of an autopen (although Bush never did so).

A group of 21 Republican Congressmen sent Obama a letter saying use of the autopen "appears contrary to the Constitution," pointing out the Bush opinion also referred to opposing legal views that the president's personal signature is required on bills. The Congressmen asked Obama to re-sign the bill himself, but he refused.

This may seem a dispute over a legal technicality, but it raises serious questions. If "sign" doesn't really mean "sign," then can a president interpret anything in the Constitution as he sees fit? If a president should be hospitalized or otherwise incapacitated, would his staff then be allowed to "sign" bills using the autopen? Should a president die suddenly, what's to prevent aides from backdating unsigned documents and then mechanically "signing" them?

It's bad enough that autopens are used to deceive the public into thinking they are getting authentic signatures. Obama's use of the autopen, even just once, sets a very troubling precedent that the president can skirt the Constitution whenever it's convenient. What do you think?

Genuinely,

Actual Reader

Dear Reader:

When the Declaration of Independence was adopted in 1776, John Hancock and the other 55 patriots signed their names in their own handwriting. Suppose the autopen had existed back then, and the colonists found out that all the signatures were machine-made facsimiles.

Would anyone have taken the revolutionary leaders seriously, when they didn't even have the integrity to sign the document themselves?

Suppose Abraham Lincoln had used an autopen to sign the Emancipation Proclamation? What if Richard Nixon had signed his letter of resignation with an autopen? This would have cast doubt on the authenticity of the documents.

In a real-life example, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld caught hell in 2004 when it was disclosed he was using an autopen to sign letters of condolence to families of American soldiers killed in action overseas. Rumsfeld claimed he authorized the device so the letters would get out quickly, but promised he would personally sign each letter in the future.

Just because the Bush administration's lawyers believed that autopen signatures are legal doesn't make it so. Remember, these were the same attorneys who advised Bush that he could issue "signing statements" when he signed legislation, stating he would not observe or enforce portions of laws he disagreed with.

Ironically, lawyers for Enron executive Kenneth Lay argued at his fraud trial that he couldn't be held accountable for documents bearing his signature because they had been signed by an autopen.

I realize the law and common sense are often at odds, but common sense tells you that important documents should be signed by hand. Would wills, deeds, affidavits, income tax returns, marriage licenses, birth certificates and the like be valid if signed by an autopen? What's the point of requiring original documents if facsimile signatures are acceptable?

When I was a girl, I read Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass." I remember Humpty Dumpty saying: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

Obama is acting like Humpty Dumpty in using "sign" to mean what he chooses, not what the framers of the Constitution meant. If he wants to use an autopen to sign cards and letters to the public, that's one thing, but he should personally sign all bills from now on, whether he is in Washington or Warsaw.

Signing off,

Fanny