In an era where the use of an autopen, a device to mimic signatures, is ordinary and unremarkable, the controversy around its use has been stoked in an unexpected way. Ordinarily, no constitutional power or legal precedent questions a presidential signature made by such a device. However, the tranquility of this custom was shaken when, during the late period of President Biden’s rule, he issued a slew of anticipatory pardons. The validity of these pardons is now being called into question for the most unusual reason – the use of an autopen.
Curiously, this skepticism was voiced by former President Trump on social media, who challenged the legality of Biden’s pardons for individuals deemed by Trump as political adversaries. His disdain was particularly directed towards those pardons provided to the bipartisan House committee involved in the scrutiny of the infamous attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. His opposition towards the pardons was launched without any legal substance or constitutional authority, making his statement an inflammatory rather than explorative discourse.
Trump’s attack on the pardons is not based on the legitimacy or justice of the pardon itself, but hinges upon a tenuous detail: the use of an autopen. His pointed criticism insinuates that using an autopen lacks the gravitas and commitment a true presidential action requires. Nevertheless, the use of autopens to issue pardons is not a new or illicit practice. During Obama’s presidency in 2011, an autopen was used to sign a legislation during his trip in Europe.
Unfortunately, Trump’s assault on the pardons issued by Biden appears to be more an exercise in humiliation and ridicule than a genuine questioning of the rule of law or procedural correctness. He chooses not to acknowledge Biden’s autonomous power while serving in the highest office, instead reducing it to an illegitimate show of authority. The assertion appears to be less about the pardons and more about the medium used—the autopen.
Pertaining to pardons, Trump’s assertion stands on particularly flimsy ground. In our great nation’s history, there has never been a legal precedent or constitutional clause that allows a pardon to be invalidated. It seems that Trump is alone in his solitary crusade to change this universal understanding, which seems to be more of a personal vendetta against Biden and less about safeguarding the principles of our constitution or our great democracy.
In the world of technology, an autopen is widely used in business and government sectors for its conveniences. The device plays a crucial role when leaders are far away from their desk or pressed by time constraints. However, Trump seems to be singularly vociferous in stating that the use of an autopen is disgraceful for signing pardons and other significant documents.
Trump’s perspective appears to be a transparent ploy to discredit Biden and make his decisions appear hasty, inattentive, and impersonal. Unsubstantiated claims followed, where Trump expressed an exaggeration that Biden was unaware of the pardons himself. This is an evident attempt to portray Biden as both uninvolved and negligent about key decisions that he must make as President, which makes Trump’s criticisms seem baseless and driven by political bias rather than fact or genuine concern.
Despite his roaring criticism, Trump himself admitted to using an autopen, although he carefully framed its usage as being for ‘benign’ purposes like responding to mail, specifically from youngsters. This explicit distinction seems like a pandering attempt to insist that the use of autopen is permissible for more trivial matters but becomes a disgrace when used in matters of national significance.
In contrast to Trump’s bitter critique, the scope and utility of autopen in today’s digital savvy world is irrefutable. It has turned out to be an effective asset for presidents and has been used to sign important legislations. Significantly, President Obama used the autopen to extend the Patriot Act for another four years during his official travel, highlighting the tool’s usefulness and the acceptance of such a practice in the past.
Trump’s adamancy in not seeing the utility of an autopen and his insistence in portraying it as a tool of disgrace when it comes to signing pardons reeks more of a personal bias and an attempt to stoke a new conspiracy theory rather than a genuine concern about procedural improprieties or constitutional adherence.
It is disheartening to witness such baseless public derision of Biden and his pardons, solely due to the method of signature. While we welcome critical analysis and evaluation of the actions of our leaders, it is crucial to base them on fair and solid grounds, rather than personal biases or political motivations.
The assertions made by Trump only serve to taint Biden’s administrative actions and belittle the use of technological advancements in the conduct of presidential duties. Such a critique lacks objectivity and fails to provide any constructive arguments for why the use of an autopen is ‘disgraceful’ in the issuance of pardons.
Ultimately, the criticisms of the use of autopen seem to be less about respect for the tools and traditions of the presidency and more about the ideological and personal disputes between Trump and Biden. As public discourse continues to intertwine fact and opinion, viewers must be wary not to fall prey to the ploys of political manipulation.
In the grand scheme of things, the debate whether the autopen should be used for signing pardons seems an irrelevant detail designed to deflect attention from pressing national concerns. The focus of our discourse should return to matters of national importance, rather than getting embroiled in controversies around tools and methods of presidency.