Patriot Act Extension By Autopen Raises Questions for Congressman

Okian Warrior writes "Congress passed the [Patriot act extension] bill Thursday night, shortly before certain provisions of the Patriot Act were set to expire. However, Mr. Obama could not sign the bill right away in person, since he was in Europe for the G8 Summit. In order to sign the bill before the measures expired, he authorized the use of the autopen machine, which holds a pen and signs his actual signature. Republican Rep. Tom Graves of Georgia sent President Obama a letter today questioning the constitutionality."

Forest/trees problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure this is important. But given the bill in question, it seems a lot like complaining about the color of shirt the rapist wears while they're pounding you in the ass.

Re:So what

[MaskedSlacker]

Because you can't extend a law which has expired. The provisions would have expired at midnight this morning, before the bill could have become law by default. This would have (arguably) rendered the extension null and void.

Re:Questioning the constitutionality...

[iceperson]

He voted against the law. http://tomgraves.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=224632 [house.gov]

Re:What?

[Mindcontrolled]

Hm... very interesting. He actually seems to have voted against it. "Graves said he believes the act gave too much power to the government, a problem cited by many of the people who helped elect him." Source here [timesfreepress.com]

Re:What?

[MightyMartian]

Unless the constitution outright states that the President must sign with pen-and-ink in person, I think there's enough precedent for many levels of government, foreign governments and extranational institutions accepting autopen signatures to render the constitutionality of the question moot.

This is what Article I Section 2 says:

2: 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. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. 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.

All it says is that the President has to sign the bill for it to become law (except where Congress gets the 2/3s to override a Presidential veto). Since autopens have for a long time been seen as legitimate signatures, I doubt very much that there is any question as to the constitutionality of this particular signature.

Re:What?

[artor3]

He's one of only 31 Republicans to have voted against it. And since this is his first term in federal government, he has never voted on it in the past. So I guess he deserves credit for the vote. Of course, he also voted to end Medicare, prevent the FCC from enforcing Net Neutrality, shut down Planned Parenthood, and keep troops in Afghanistan for longer.

So fuck him.

Re:Does anyone read the constitution?

[RoFLKOPTr]

So worst case here, the PATRIOT Act renewal didn't take effect but will soon.

A bill that extends a law doesn't copy the law into a new law, it merely amends the expiration date that is written in the existing law. You can't amend a law that has expired, and a bill that is implicitly signed due to sitting for 10 days is not retroactive to when it was forwarded to the President, so it would have effectively become useless had it not been signed last night.

Re:The comments are full of hilarity

[artor3]

House Dems votes against by more than a 2-1 margin. If Republicans didn't control the House, the Patriot Act would have expired this morning.

Source: http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/376 [nytimes.com]