We should not be asking whether or not the government is "legitimate". As we have seen with the lunacies of Democrats, legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. There's just not a productive discussion to be had. We already know Democrats will say Trump is illegitimate and Biden was legitimate. The MAGA Coalition will say the exact opposite. There is no middle ground between the two positions.
What we SHOULD ask is to what degree did the Biden Administration violate the Constitutional order? We should ask that of every administration, including Trump 2.0. We should not pretend that everything Trump does or wants to do is in line with what the Constitution permits him to do. Popularity with a particular constituency is no substitute for Constitutionality.
That is a discussion we not only can have, it is a discussion we should want to have, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. That is a discussion where the key elements can be adjudicated. That is a discussion that can show us how the Constitution perhaps ought to be amended, to address various concerns.
If we focus on fidelity to the Constitution, most other issues resolve themselves.
Wise, Peter. If we could just get everyone to focus on interpreting our Constitution, rather than on the correct-thought of the passing fancy, our country could heal.
This is the problem: the Constitution does not spell out what the proper process should be in the event the Presidential signature is invalid.
If we look to contract law, which is the other corpus of law which addresses validity of signatures and authorities, a fraudulent signature would leave a document in the same state as no signature. A contract with a forged signature loses all operative force and becomes as if the contract had not been signed.
If Joe Biden did not or could not authorize use of the autopen, then autopen signatures would count as forgeries, and, going by the the standards of contract law, all documents with invalid Presidential signatures are consequently unsigned.
For most of the laws that were signed, this probably means the invalid signature is functionally not an issue. After ten days a bill automatically becomes law even without the Presidential signature. The only exception is if Congress adjourns prior to the ten day expiry, in which case the President has what is called a "pocket veto". For nearly every piece of legislation "signed" by Joe Biden, that would be the case. If there were pieces of legislation signed less then ten days prior to an adjournment, those laws would have to come off the books, based on that reasoning.
As a matter of basic justice, while pardons and commutations would also revert to an "unsigned" state, revoking an act of clemency would be at the very least politically difficult. A person who is released from prison under color of a presumed legal Presidential pardon could probably make a compelling Eighth Amendment claim if the Trump Administration were to seek to reincarcerate that person because their pardon was invalid.
HOWEVER
Proactive pardons such as those given Anthony "The Science™" Fauci or the J6 Committee would lose their capacity to bar investigation into people's misdeeds. Since they have to even be charged with a crime, let alone stand convicted of one, they would have no Eighth Amendment claim. All the pardons issued to protect former Biden Administration members would lose their operative force, which means those people are once more liable for investigation and potentially prosecution.
Executive orders are fundamentally a non-issue, as President Trump has already revoked 2/3 of Biden's EOs, and can revoke the rest if he sees fit.
That's why the big question for me are Biden's 13 vetoes. When the President vetoes legislation, he returns it to Congress along with a written communication outlining his objections, which the Congress can dispose of as they please. That written communication presumably is signed by the President. If THOSE signatures were forged, then, again working on the theory that a forged signature leaves the document in the same state as no signature, those vetoes are invalid, which means on expiration of the ten day window the laws Biden presumably vetoed should have become law.
Biden's very last veto involved creating new federal judgeships, which is clearly no small matter given the prevalence of rogue justices hell bent on thwarting Trump, the law be damned.
However, there is not one part of the Constitution or any of its Amendments one can cite to establish that what I have laid out is or is not the way to contend with a forged or invalid Presidential signature. Going by my understanding of common law, this is how the courts COULD adjudicate the matter, but in no way shape or form can this be considered "Constitutional".
I'm just applying my understanding of the law to the facts as we have them.
I don't think I have the law wrong, but I am quite certain that the Constitution says bupkis about this, so definitely take everything I've laid out with a grain of salt.
These are the arguments I would present to a court on the matter. That's all.
I took two courses in Business Law as an undergrad, which was just enough to give me the sense of how much the law is open to interpretation, and under what circumstances the law is concrete and NOT open to interpretation. For example, an oral contract can be binding in many circumstances, but MUST be in writing if it involves real estate.
I don’t know how this autopen dilemma will be interpreted by the legal scholars, but I suspect that political ideology, prejudices, and Trump Derangement Syndrome will play too large a part. Super-smart legal minds like yours, Peter, will be needed to correct course - as usual!
I’m so glad you’re bringing up this issue again, Peter. It’s so important!
I assume there are many Constitutional scholars and attorneys who are debating this matter, and I hope you will keep us updated. Does a consensus emerge, or a deep division? Will a pathway to righting a wrong emerge, or will a political desire to bury the issue prevail? Does Trump believe his DOJ can actually carve out damage to the Biden administration, or is he just rattling some political cages? Inquiring minds want to know!
The "Deep State" side of the political establishment wants to discredit the notion of rogue staffers using the autopen to forge Joe Biden's signature.
It makes sense why they would. While the bureaucracy may in its arrogance believe it can function completely on its own (and should function completely on its own, without interference from grubby elected officials), the people are not likely to heed the diktats of a faceless bureaucracy. People like to put faces to their frustrations, and elected officials if nothing else provide the bureaucracy with convenient scapegoats.
Where the bureaucracy erred was in not bothering to conceal Biden's dementia, and not finding a graceful exit for him before that disastrous June debate. After that debate when everyone saw that Biden could not string two sentences together, people were bound to ask these sort of uncomfortable questions.
Just as in the Wizard of Oz, once the curtain is pulled back, the mystique is forever gone. It cannot be recaptured.
How many people are truly disturbed by the autopen is of course a problematic question. What is not problematic is that the number of people is only going to increase. It's not going to decrease any time soon. That's a problem for the Deep State bureaucrats, and it is one that has the potential to prove lethal to their control over the levers of government.
As for whether Trump can do anything, the question is going to be will anyone from the Biden White House turn state's evidence. If one Biden staffer comes forward and substantiates use of the autopen outside of clear and direct authorization from Joe Biden himself—and while the testimonies thus far have shown that such use was possible, even probable, we have not yet seen smoking gun evidence that it actually happened—that is going to be the crack that breaks the dam wide open.
Will that happen? There's no way to know that until it does. But until it does, Donald Trump does not want people to forget about the autopen.
“Where the bureaucracy erred was in not bothering to conceal Biden's dementia, and not finding a graceful exit for him before that disastrous June debate.”
In my mind, it comes down to VP Harris having a Constitutional requirement to invoke the amendment giving her the power to declare Biden incompetent to hold office. Kamala did not do so, and should be held accountable for her error. So the question in my mind is, will this happen? Peter, you follow political thinking so expertly, do you think the politicians will ultimately use Kamala as the scapegoat here?
They really can't succeed. She's the one who could obviously invoke the 25th Amendment, but every member of the Cabinet, and for that matter the entirety of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as the Democratic leadership in Congress had a Constitutional duty to raise the issue of Joe Biden's competency. Instead they all lied about it.
The lying part is what makes them all guilty. Denying that there was an issue, given the oath all of them swear, is clear dereliction of duty and potentially criminal in its own right.
Everyone who was in close contact with Joe Biden knew he was deteriorating. They all stood by and watched it happen. Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson even gave chapter and verse on that with their book earlier this year.
I hope I live to see a Hollywood movie made about this political scandal. Think of the “West Wing” type of drama - the threats, the coverups, the ultimate downfall of the Biden administration. Epic!
Thanks, Peter. I’m not forgetting this. I think there is a plan lurking somewhere in the Trump administration to blow this fraud and the DemoRats coup to kingdom come. The damage the blue coven has done to my family concerning child trans ideology and Covid is unspeakable and unforgivable. I frankly blame every sordid vote by every blue f#$ker out there. Some I can barely look at anymore. Yeah, I’m mad as Hell and hope they end up there.
There certainly appears to be the desire to do just that.
Figuring out how to actually do it can be tricky, especially given the anti-Trump tilt we've seen in the DC-based federal judiciary.
I would love to see the Trump DoJ file charges against staffers from the Biden White House over the autopen. I just don't know how easy that will be given the terrain.
The real issue, regarding a root cause analysis of this issue, is: Did we have a legitimate government?
If it is verified that Biden did not know what he was signing, it is necessary to void any and all laws created be his autopsy signature.
I would like to clarify one point:
We should not be asking whether or not the government is "legitimate". As we have seen with the lunacies of Democrats, legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. There's just not a productive discussion to be had. We already know Democrats will say Trump is illegitimate and Biden was legitimate. The MAGA Coalition will say the exact opposite. There is no middle ground between the two positions.
What we SHOULD ask is to what degree did the Biden Administration violate the Constitutional order? We should ask that of every administration, including Trump 2.0. We should not pretend that everything Trump does or wants to do is in line with what the Constitution permits him to do. Popularity with a particular constituency is no substitute for Constitutionality.
That is a discussion we not only can have, it is a discussion we should want to have, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. That is a discussion where the key elements can be adjudicated. That is a discussion that can show us how the Constitution perhaps ought to be amended, to address various concerns.
If we focus on fidelity to the Constitution, most other issues resolve themselves.
Wise, Peter. If we could just get everyone to focus on interpreting our Constitution, rather than on the correct-thought of the passing fancy, our country could heal.
This is the problem: the Constitution does not spell out what the proper process should be in the event the Presidential signature is invalid.
If we look to contract law, which is the other corpus of law which addresses validity of signatures and authorities, a fraudulent signature would leave a document in the same state as no signature. A contract with a forged signature loses all operative force and becomes as if the contract had not been signed.
If Joe Biden did not or could not authorize use of the autopen, then autopen signatures would count as forgeries, and, going by the the standards of contract law, all documents with invalid Presidential signatures are consequently unsigned.
For most of the laws that were signed, this probably means the invalid signature is functionally not an issue. After ten days a bill automatically becomes law even without the Presidential signature. The only exception is if Congress adjourns prior to the ten day expiry, in which case the President has what is called a "pocket veto". For nearly every piece of legislation "signed" by Joe Biden, that would be the case. If there were pieces of legislation signed less then ten days prior to an adjournment, those laws would have to come off the books, based on that reasoning.
As a matter of basic justice, while pardons and commutations would also revert to an "unsigned" state, revoking an act of clemency would be at the very least politically difficult. A person who is released from prison under color of a presumed legal Presidential pardon could probably make a compelling Eighth Amendment claim if the Trump Administration were to seek to reincarcerate that person because their pardon was invalid.
HOWEVER
Proactive pardons such as those given Anthony "The Science™" Fauci or the J6 Committee would lose their capacity to bar investigation into people's misdeeds. Since they have to even be charged with a crime, let alone stand convicted of one, they would have no Eighth Amendment claim. All the pardons issued to protect former Biden Administration members would lose their operative force, which means those people are once more liable for investigation and potentially prosecution.
Executive orders are fundamentally a non-issue, as President Trump has already revoked 2/3 of Biden's EOs, and can revoke the rest if he sees fit.
That's why the big question for me are Biden's 13 vetoes. When the President vetoes legislation, he returns it to Congress along with a written communication outlining his objections, which the Congress can dispose of as they please. That written communication presumably is signed by the President. If THOSE signatures were forged, then, again working on the theory that a forged signature leaves the document in the same state as no signature, those vetoes are invalid, which means on expiration of the ten day window the laws Biden presumably vetoed should have become law.
Biden's very last veto involved creating new federal judgeships, which is clearly no small matter given the prevalence of rogue justices hell bent on thwarting Trump, the law be damned.
However, there is not one part of the Constitution or any of its Amendments one can cite to establish that what I have laid out is or is not the way to contend with a forged or invalid Presidential signature. Going by my understanding of common law, this is how the courts COULD adjudicate the matter, but in no way shape or form can this be considered "Constitutional".
That's a problem, and a pretty big one.
Heavens Peter, you’re SO good at this!
I'm just applying my understanding of the law to the facts as we have them.
I don't think I have the law wrong, but I am quite certain that the Constitution says bupkis about this, so definitely take everything I've laid out with a grain of salt.
These are the arguments I would present to a court on the matter. That's all.
I took two courses in Business Law as an undergrad, which was just enough to give me the sense of how much the law is open to interpretation, and under what circumstances the law is concrete and NOT open to interpretation. For example, an oral contract can be binding in many circumstances, but MUST be in writing if it involves real estate.
I don’t know how this autopen dilemma will be interpreted by the legal scholars, but I suspect that political ideology, prejudices, and Trump Derangement Syndrome will play too large a part. Super-smart legal minds like yours, Peter, will be needed to correct course - as usual!
why would female soldiers need to be protected more than make soldiers?
You mean aside from the obvious differences in muscle mass and attractiveness as potential targets for sexual assault?
(As regards the propriety of women in combat zones performing combat roles, this is not that discussion)
Thank you! My family accuses Trump of auto-pen, and MSM does too
I’m so glad you’re bringing up this issue again, Peter. It’s so important!
I assume there are many Constitutional scholars and attorneys who are debating this matter, and I hope you will keep us updated. Does a consensus emerge, or a deep division? Will a pathway to righting a wrong emerge, or will a political desire to bury the issue prevail? Does Trump believe his DOJ can actually carve out damage to the Biden administration, or is he just rattling some political cages? Inquiring minds want to know!
Thanks, Magnificent Man!
I’ve learned not to pay as much attention to what President Trump says, but watch what he does.
You’re right, and wise to do so, Janet!
The "Deep State" side of the political establishment wants to discredit the notion of rogue staffers using the autopen to forge Joe Biden's signature.
It makes sense why they would. While the bureaucracy may in its arrogance believe it can function completely on its own (and should function completely on its own, without interference from grubby elected officials), the people are not likely to heed the diktats of a faceless bureaucracy. People like to put faces to their frustrations, and elected officials if nothing else provide the bureaucracy with convenient scapegoats.
Where the bureaucracy erred was in not bothering to conceal Biden's dementia, and not finding a graceful exit for him before that disastrous June debate. After that debate when everyone saw that Biden could not string two sentences together, people were bound to ask these sort of uncomfortable questions.
Just as in the Wizard of Oz, once the curtain is pulled back, the mystique is forever gone. It cannot be recaptured.
How many people are truly disturbed by the autopen is of course a problematic question. What is not problematic is that the number of people is only going to increase. It's not going to decrease any time soon. That's a problem for the Deep State bureaucrats, and it is one that has the potential to prove lethal to their control over the levers of government.
As for whether Trump can do anything, the question is going to be will anyone from the Biden White House turn state's evidence. If one Biden staffer comes forward and substantiates use of the autopen outside of clear and direct authorization from Joe Biden himself—and while the testimonies thus far have shown that such use was possible, even probable, we have not yet seen smoking gun evidence that it actually happened—that is going to be the crack that breaks the dam wide open.
Will that happen? There's no way to know that until it does. But until it does, Donald Trump does not want people to forget about the autopen.
“Where the bureaucracy erred was in not bothering to conceal Biden's dementia, and not finding a graceful exit for him before that disastrous June debate.”
In my mind, it comes down to VP Harris having a Constitutional requirement to invoke the amendment giving her the power to declare Biden incompetent to hold office. Kamala did not do so, and should be held accountable for her error. So the question in my mind is, will this happen? Peter, you follow political thinking so expertly, do you think the politicians will ultimately use Kamala as the scapegoat here?
They may try.
They really can't succeed. She's the one who could obviously invoke the 25th Amendment, but every member of the Cabinet, and for that matter the entirety of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as the Democratic leadership in Congress had a Constitutional duty to raise the issue of Joe Biden's competency. Instead they all lied about it.
The lying part is what makes them all guilty. Denying that there was an issue, given the oath all of them swear, is clear dereliction of duty and potentially criminal in its own right.
Everyone who was in close contact with Joe Biden knew he was deteriorating. They all stood by and watched it happen. Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson even gave chapter and verse on that with their book earlier this year.
I hope I live to see a Hollywood movie made about this political scandal. Think of the “West Wing” type of drama - the threats, the coverups, the ultimate downfall of the Biden administration. Epic!
Thanks, Peter. I’m not forgetting this. I think there is a plan lurking somewhere in the Trump administration to blow this fraud and the DemoRats coup to kingdom come. The damage the blue coven has done to my family concerning child trans ideology and Covid is unspeakable and unforgivable. I frankly blame every sordid vote by every blue f#$ker out there. Some I can barely look at anymore. Yeah, I’m mad as Hell and hope they end up there.
There certainly appears to be the desire to do just that.
Figuring out how to actually do it can be tricky, especially given the anti-Trump tilt we've seen in the DC-based federal judiciary.
I would love to see the Trump DoJ file charges against staffers from the Biden White House over the autopen. I just don't know how easy that will be given the terrain.