Autopen Controversy Surrounds Biden’s Pardons, Raising Questions About Presidential Authority and Mental Acuity
The use of an autopen by former President Joe Biden to sign official documents, including presidential pardons, throughout his four years in office has ignited a heated debate, raising concerns about the legitimacy of these actions and prompting questions about Biden’s mental acuity during his time in the White House. While legal experts suggest that challenging the use of an autopen on presidential pardons in court is highly unlikely, the issue has nonetheless sparked a wave of scrutiny and speculation.
Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, a Fox News contributor, acknowledged the growing concerns surrounding Biden’s autopen use, particularly in light of the high-profile pardons granted during his presidency. These included pardons for individuals connected to the January 6th select committee investigation and, most notably, his own son. However, Turley tempered the concerns by stating that the "chances of such challenges succeeding are vanishingly low," emphasizing that presidents are generally permitted to use the autopen, and courts are unlikely to presume a "dead-hand conspiracy."
Turley further pointed out the potential difficulties in establishing legal standing to challenge the pardons unless the issue arises in a government effort to indict a recipient. Despite the legal hurdles, Turley emphasized that the disclosures are "deeply troubling," suggesting that they warrant further investigation and public discussion.
Trump’s Outspoken Criticism and Legal Challenges
Former President Donald Trump has emerged as a vocal critic of Biden’s autopen usage, particularly regarding presidential pardons issued before leaving office in January. Trump took to his Truth Social platform to declare Biden’s pardons for individuals connected to the January 6th select committee investigation "VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT," asserting that the autopen usage indicated that Biden "did not know anything about them!"
Trump’s statement claimed that the pardoning documents were not explained to or approved by Biden, suggesting that those who facilitated the autopen signatures may have committed a crime. He further asserted that members of the January 6th select committee, who he accused of destroying and deleting evidence, should be subject to investigation.
Legal Experts Weigh In on Uncharted Territory
Trump’s declaration sparked a flurry of legal questions, with experts acknowledging that the situation presents uncharted legal territory. Michael O’Neill, the vice president of legal affairs at Landmark Legal Foundation, noted the lack of precedent for challenging the limits of presidential pardon power.
O’Neill raised critical questions, such as whether a president can issue blanket pardons encompassing any crime an individual may be accused of over ten years and whether pardons executed without the president’s knowledge via autopen are valid. He suggested that if an individual who has received a pardon is indicted, they would likely assert the pardon as an affirmative defense, potentially leading to a Supreme Court case that would define the contours of the pardon power.
The Heritage Foundation’s Investigation and Constitutional Concerns
The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project was among the first to raise concerns about Biden’s autopen usage, reporting that an autopen signature was used on the vast majority of official documents they reviewed. The Project Oversight memo argued that if President Biden’s non-delegable official actions were not his own, then they are invalid, citing multiple Constitutional provisions that vest certain powers solely in the President.
The memo emphasized the importance of the President affixing his signature as his execution of acts as President, asserting that it is not merely a ministerial act. It cited Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which outlines the President’s role in signing or vetoing legislation, to argue that the President’s manual signature is his consent and the very act that causes a bill to become law.
Differing Interpretations of Presidential Authority
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion in 2005 under President George W. Bush’s administration, stating that the president is permitted to use an autopen to sign bills into law. However, the Project Oversight memo countered that the opinion is "wrong," even while acknowledging that the opinion emphasized that the President cannot delegate the decision to approve and sign a bill, only the act of affixing the signature.
Questions About Biden’s Mental Acuity and "Dead-Hand Power"
Concerns over Biden’s mental acuity during his time in the White House have been amplified by the autopen controversy and Trump’s assertions that Biden was unaware of signing the pardons specifically. These concerns gained further traction following Biden’s performance in his first and only presidential debate against Trump, where he appeared to stumble over his responses and lose his train of thought.
Speaker Mike Johnson recounted an instance in January where Biden reportedly didn’t remember signing an executive order freezing new liquid natural gas exports, further fueling scrutiny surrounding Biden’s mental acuity. Johnson described the experience as leaving him with "fear and loathing," questioning who was actually running the country.
Turley suggested that Johnson’s comments on Biden raise the specter of a "dead-hand power" being exercised by staffers. He acknowledged that pursuing such allegations would be difficult, as those involved would likely claim full knowledge and approval by the president.
White House Response and Ongoing Investigation
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed questions about the autopen during a press briefing, acknowledging that Trump’s Truth Social post raised questions about whether Biden was aware of the pardons when he signed them. Leavitt stated that there were Biden officials from the previous White House who wondered if the president was even consulted about his legally binding signature being signed onto documents. She emphasized that the issue warranted investigation, suggesting that criminal or illegal behavior may have occurred if staff members were signing the president’s autograph without his consent.
The controversy surrounding Biden’s autopen usage underscores the complex interplay between presidential authority, constitutional law, and public perception. While legal experts suggest that challenges to the pardons are unlikely to succeed in court, the issue has nonetheless raised important questions about the exercise of presidential power and the potential for abuse. The ongoing investigation and public debate surrounding Biden’s autopen usage will likely continue to shape the political landscape in the coming months.
