President Trump has claimed that many of the pardons issued by Joe Biden are invalid because they were signed with an autopen device instead of by hand. Trump’s statement, posted on Truth Social, lacks evidence to support this assertion. BBC Verify has found instances where Biden did sign pardons by hand, and a sample presidential signature is commonly used for US government documents stored in the Federal Register.
Legal experts have clarified that there is no law in the US that would nullify pardons signed by autopen. Trump’s specific pardons in question were not mentioned, but he has previously criticized Biden for pardoning family members and referred to the house select committee investigating the January 6 riots as the “unselect committee.”
BBC Verify found photographic evidence of Biden signing pardons by hand, including pardons for marijuana possession and non-violent offenders. While Biden has used autopen for some documents, there is no clear record of him using it for pardons exclusively.
The Oversight Project from The Heritage Foundation has raised concerns about Biden’s signature consistency on certain documents, including some family members and political figures. The Federal Register uses a standard signature created from a single sample provided by the White House at the start of each administration.
Presidential documents from both Trump administrations archived by the Federal Register showed identical signatures, including Trump’s hand-signed pardons for the January 6 rioters. Legal experts emphasized that autopen-signed official documents by US presidents, including pardons, are legally binding under US law.
For more information on this issue, BBC Verify has requested clarification from Biden’s office regarding his autopen usage and evidence from the White House to support Trump’s claims.
In a curious twist of presidential tradition, the use of autopen – a mechanical device capable of reproducing a signature – has sparked debate around the formalities of official pardons in the United States. While past administrations have employed autopen for routine paperwork, the latest instance involving President Joe Biden’s use of the device for signing pardons has raised eyebrows among scholars and legal experts.
Amidst the discourse, a memorandum dating back to 2005 from the Department of Justice under the Bush administration sheds light on the legal validity of autopen signatures. According to the memo, the President can authorize a subordinate to affix their signature to a bill, effectively deeming it lawfully signed. This mechanism allows for flexibility in official procedures, with the autopen serving as a surrogate signer in certain circumstances.
Contrary to his predecessor, George W. Bush refrained from utilizing autopen during his tenure. However, President Barack Obama broke the mold in 2011 by adopting the technology for official purposes. The practice of autopen stretches back further in history, with notable figures like John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman also employing the device during their presidencies.
The recent controversy surrounding autopen has prompted legal scholars to weigh in on the implications for constitutional norms. Professor Erin Delaney, leading the Global Centre for Democratic Constitutionalism at UCL, emphasizes the significance of respecting established conventions in governance. She cautions against any attempt by former President Donald Trump to challenge Biden’s pardons, citing potential repercussions for the rule of law.
Highlighting the rarity of a president revoking pardons issued by their predecessor, Professor Moran underscores the historical precedent set by past administrations. The prospect of legal battles arising from such actions underscores the complex interplay between executive powers and constitutional principles. Any move to retract pardons could trigger a legal showdown that tests the boundaries of constitutional interpretation.
As the debate unfolds, questions arise regarding the broader implications of autopen usage in the realm of governance. The intersection of technology and tradition prompts reflections on the evolving nature of official procedures in the digital age. The reliance on automatic signatures not only impacts presidential pardons but also extends to legislative enactments, raising fundamental questions about the sanctity of official acts.
In light of the ongoing discussion surrounding autopen and its implications for presidential pardons, the intricacies of constitutional norms and legal precedents come into sharp focus. The interplay between tradition, technology, and governance underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of the mechanisms that underpin the functioning of the executive branch.
Reporting by Tamara Kovacevic and Shayan Sardarizadeh provides additional insights into the complexities surrounding autopen usage in the context of presidential pardons. Their contributions shed light on the multifaceted dimensions of this issue, paving the way for a comprehensive examination of the legal and constitutional implications at play.
In conclusion, the debate over autopen signatures and their impact on presidential pardons underscores the intricate dynamics of executive authority and constitutional norms. As the discussion
