It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Autopen: Obama's controversial use of the autopen

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by j35us
 

I’m not disrespecting you, I was pointing out how unconvincing your argument sounded to me. And I don’t see how pointing to other outrageous and unfounded theories on this website strengthens it.

I understand some might want to continue discussing things based on ‘possibilities’ and conjecture, and this is a conspiracy website after all, but the motto of ATS also happens to be “deny ignorance,” so the purpose is to eventually deal in facts and get to the truth. Continuously debating things based on ‘possibilities’ just because we can imagine them doesn’t get us anywhere near that goal.

Until there is any indication your scenario, and others suggested by other members, are happening or have happened, the only thing we should be discussing is whether there are any constitutional or legal problems by using this technology to sign laws.

The argument you have presented for your opposition to this is based on nothing but “a possibility” that you can imagine, and if that’s the criteria, then the autopen is the least of your problems. ‘They’ could clone Obama and make the clone sign all the laws they want. Hey, it’s just a possibility. Have you read some of the stuff that gets posted on here?




posted on May, 28 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
Other presidents have made use of the autopen, but this is the first time a bill was signed into law using it.
So what do you think the implications are? Do you think there are any constitutional or legal problems? If so, which ones?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


No idea, to be honest. It is my personal opinion, however, that if the president cannot sign it in person, it should not become law. This sets a possibly dangerous precedent; laws signed without the president being there...how do we know he approved? Of course this was the fault of Congress, debating until 15 minutes before the Act would have expired.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
This sets a possibly dangerous precedent; laws signed without the president being there...how do we know he approved?
That gets back to the scenario j35us presented. If something like that happened, why wouldn’t the President say anything?

By the way, the Constitution already says the bill will become law if the President doesn’t return it to Congress after 10 days after it was first presented to him.

So under your conspiracy scenario, and your preference that the President should only sign bills in person, ‘they’ could make the President go on a trip, be out of the White House for 10 days, and a bill would become law, and that doesn’t even involve someone using the President’s signature.

Having the President sign bills in person then, doesn’t solve the problems presented by your conspiracy theories.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Like invisible says it's a matter of possible flaws with the autopen system. I threw a possibility out there as a worst case scenario, as long as it is in any way possible to do, I see it as an exploitable feature. Security auditing is what I do and this is a big vulnerability considering how vast the position of the president has become over the past decades. This same autopen can be used to oust Obama if someone was so inclined, especially after it's recent use on a national law. Obama now has historically used it, in the future if someone decides to pass something he wishes to veto and uses the autopen, how could he really argue against it? It's the presidential signature programmed into a machine and he just used it on a bill that strips basic civil liberties of his own people. It's very unlikely but still an exploitable vector of attack if anyone was so inclined. I'll just end the theory there because yes it is the most unlikely possibility and has no history to back it up.

I really just wanted to stress that using autopens for documents of that level of importance is dangerous and could have any number of consequences and we as a nation should do our part to remove that possibility. You said it yourself, deny ignorance, and just entertain the drawbacks of the system that don't come into play if he took that small amount of effort to use his own hand instead.

Edit: I just read your last post and yes that too could be considered a possibility but having a president out of communications for 10 days seems the more unlikely of the two and while I stated its and unlikely but exploitable situation, as your counter is, this leaves less room for refuting the act.
edit on 28-5-2011 by j35us because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I dont see any problems with using the autopen myself. I think theres bigger fish to fry than whether the president uses an autopen, just my two cents.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Antiquated1
Do you honestly believe there is a law with Obama's signature on it but he does not know what is in the law?


Well, he never signed it, so it makes sense he's probably never read it either. There is no proof he has.

He receives instructions of what he is to "sign" and not. I don't know why they don't just make it legal for one of his mates to sign on his behalf.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by aptness
 


No idea, to be honest. It is my personal opinion, however, that if the president cannot sign it in person, it should not become law. This sets a possibly dangerous precedent; laws signed without the president being there...how do we know he approved? Of course this was the fault of Congress, debating until 15 minutes before the Act would have expired.


Maybe this is a stupid question but wouldn't the president say something if there was a law floating around with his signature on it the he does not claim to have signed? We all know about it. Think they slipped it past him? I guess I do not understand because if you have something with my signature on it and I tell you I stand by that signature, it really does not matter if it is a dog print or a big X. As long as I claim it is my dog print or my big X, then I am owning up to signing it, right?



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross
 

I agree with your opinion on the President being present, with pen and documents in hand, to make a law. Through electronic transmission, all kinds of 'wrongs' could happen. Maybe the next law needs to be the limitation of a President's globetrotting!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join