Patriot Act Extension By Autopen Raises Questions for Congressman

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patriot Act Extension By Autopen Raises Questions for Congressman

Posted by timothy on Friday May 27, 2011 @12:40PM from the great-and-powerful-oz dept.

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."

247 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I for one... by DWMorse · 2011-05-27 12:41 · Score: 3, Funny

I for one welcome our new law-signing robotic overlords.
... I'm... I'm sorry.

--
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
1. Re:I for one... by jhoegl · 2011-05-27 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  Dont make me go upside your head!
2. Re:I for one... by houghi · 2011-05-27 17:26 · Score: 1
  
  Read My Sig.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
3. Re:I for one... by Sulphur · 2011-05-27 20:37 · Score: 1
  
  Back in the day, there was a gizmo in Kansas City Railroad Station that transmitted position from a pen to a remote pen via telephone. One could exchange signatures and short notes.
  Of course fax has been around for a long time.
  --
  Read My Sig.
4. Re:I for one... by paiute · 2011-05-28 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  Back in the day, there was a gizmo in Kansas City Railroad Station that transmitted position from a pen to a remote pen via telephone. One could exchange signatures and short notes.
  Of course fax has been around for a long time.
  --
  Read My Sig.
  The first patent on a fax machine was issued in 1843.
  
  --
  If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
5. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-28 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  Good fucking god, slashdot is like 4chan, except there's only 5 memes and they're all 10 years old.
6. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-28 13:52 · Score: 0
  
  Should have just used a fax machine... Those are accepted for day-to-day business.
7. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-29 15:59 · Score: 0
  
  4chan may have more memes, but you at least got the 10 year old part mostly right... you'd have to be 10 years old to enjoy anything from that site.
Questioning the constitutionality... by ChrisMounce · 2011-05-27 12:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'd like to question the constitutionality of a lot more than just how it was signed.
1. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by Black+Parrot · 2011-05-27 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to question the constitutionality of a lot more than just how it was signed.
  My thought too. He's got no problem with the law, but doesn't like the mechanics of getting it signed?
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
2. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by Mindcontrolled · 2011-05-27 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. Deep, weird, shit. It's not like this was the first law signed by autopen in the absence of the signee, but with his spoken consent. But hey, these days, shit-stirring about technicalities seems to be the agenda. Saves you from discussing content.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
3. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by iceperson · 2011-05-27 13:01 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  He voted against the law. http://tomgraves.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=224632
4. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 13:07 · Score: 0
  
  Welp, cause of how it's signed, I guess we gotta throw it out. Thanks Rep. Graves!
5. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 13:10 · Score: 0
  
  Me too, but in the principle of autopenning bills so long as it is the president's true authorization, the signature is a formality.
6. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 13:56 · Score: 0
  
  Obama likely wanted to be able to deny having signed it at a later point publicly - glad the congressman at least made it known that Obama did in fact read and understand what he was signing, and that he did authorize it. Maybe we will get really lucky and Santa will bring us an impeachment.
7. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by Black+Parrot · 2011-05-27 14:44 · Score: 2
  
  He voted against the law.
  http://tomgraves.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=224632
  
  Good for him. Maybe he's raising the technical issue as a last-ditch effort to obstruct it.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
8. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by MindlessAutomata · 2011-05-27 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  Go back to SA, filthy goon.
9. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 15:57 · Score: 0
  
  There's definitely a usurpation here.
  I mean, if an elected rep. can't even muster the the honor to validate a bill with their physical presence and signature, what is the fucking point of the Legislative Branch then? Gives new meaning to the terms empty suit, anyways. And I don't buy any argument that this 'technology' makes it easier for the rep's to do their business. Their business is OUR business, and their ass belongs in the chambers!
10. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by SanityInAnarchy · 2011-05-27 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and while I wish him the best of luck, it also comes off as a bit pissy. "Autopen" already seems overly ceremonious -- what, they can't fax, email, etc, and have him print and sign that? Even that seems backwards compared to, say, cryptographic keys, but really, having a device that physically signs for him seems like overkill, and questioning it on a legal/constitutional basis is missing the point -- the President approved it.
  So, while I do think it'd be cool if he could block it this way, and it'd be well worth the inconvenience of forcing every president from now on to sign bills physically (at least until the constitution can be amended), I doubt this is going to fly.
  
  --
  Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
11. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by SanityInAnarchy · 2011-05-27 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, he not only read and understood it, he publicly spoke about how glad he was that it had been extended.
  
  --
  Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
12. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 19:48 · Score: 1
  
  Can you prove he approved it? His signature was supposed to be proof he did, but since a machine signed it for him we can't be sure he really did approve.
  Also, if someone imitates your signature, cryptographic analysis is supposed to prove it wasn't you who signed. I doubt autopen can imitate a signature to the point that cryptographic analysis can't differentiate autopen from someone's handwriting. Perhaps to the naked eye both signatures look the same, but if you take a very close look, like a cryptanalyst would, you can probably see a difference.
  So what if I took the matter to court, claimed the president did not actually sign the bill, and managed to get the signature analyzed? The analysis would conclude it's not the president handwriting, regardless of whether the president approved of the bill or not. What should the judge do? Rule that since it's not the president's handwriting it's not valid, or should he rule that signatures are considered valid provided they look similar to the naked eye, thus from then on making cryptanalysis legally invalid as a method to detect forgeries?
  And don't tell me "Well if the president did not sign himself but says he approves, it's the same thing as if he signed" - that would be wrong, or else we wouldn't require the president to sign bills but just to declare on TV that he approves.
  There are indeed valid reasons to question the use of autopen for signing bills. We're talking about laws here, laws dictate the behavior of all people. Autopen might be OK if the president was signing the ownership papers to a new house or car, but a law?? Questions do need to be raised (And I'm not saying autopen should be banned, I'm only saying that before approving of it we must give it very careful consideration - the American public should have an opinion and should be heard on that matter).
13. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by sumdumass · 2011-05-27 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  I think it was a timing issue as stated and you are reading way more into it.
  I mean seriously, would you rather the president spend a couple million in tax payer dollars jetting back to the US off schedule just to sign it, then jet back to his Vacation/foreign meeting? Or should he just approve the use of a device that is normally used to sign autographed pictures and crap that aren't policy related but certain members of the public demand.
  I don't Care for Obama, but this was the right call considering the alternatives- which would have been the law expiring or the president spending crap-tons of money to make it back in time to keep it alive. You may not like the PARTIOT act, but the majority of your federally elected officials do so we know it would have been the expensive choice.
14. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by HungryHobo · 2011-05-27 23:34 · Score: 2
  
  cryptanalyst has fuck all to do with checking written signatures.
  Human beings naturally sign it slightly differently each time they sign their name and autopen is just a fancy version of the "signature" stamps that you'll see in many offices.
  the fact that the president was verifiably nowhere near the document when it was signed would be better proof than any "cryptanalyst".
  Could he simply have his signature cut into a stamp and ask someone to stamp things for him when he's not there to sign stuff personally?
  If not I can't see how autopen could be legal.
15. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by WhirlwindMonk · 2011-05-28 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  I'd rather they actually planned ahead so he could be present for the bill signing. It's not like this need for renewal snuck up on them. I mean, I'm sure they've all read the whole Act and are aware of the various deadlines...right?
16. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by paiute · 2011-05-28 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  Can you prove he approved it? His signature was supposed to be proof he did, but since a machine signed it for him we can't be sure he really did approve.
  If the President lived in a palace like the Japanese Emperor of old, and no common man was allowed to see or hear him, then maybe. Our presidents tend to be on camera and microphone most of the day, so we know their intent. His approval of the bill is on the record, and that is really what the signature represents.
  
  --
  If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
17. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by g0bshiTe · 2011-05-28 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  Fax, email, mail, or how about an aide sent to the summit with the document lock in a briefcase?
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
18. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by Vegemeister · 2011-05-28 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
19. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by alanshot · 2011-05-28 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  cryptanalyst has fuck all to do with checking written signatures.
  Human beings naturally sign it slightly differently each time they sign their name and autopen is just a fancy version of the "signature" stamps that you'll see in many offices.
  Ever seen how the POTUS signs a bill? he does it in teeny, tiny peices, switching pens each time to give key supporters a souvenir so they can say " See this pen Timmy? When your grandpa was younger, he worked with the president on a bill. This pen was used to sign that bill into law."
  So cryptography, handwriting/signature analysis goes out the window for this specific kind of signature.
20. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by slick7 · 2011-05-28 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  Can you prove he approved it? His signature was supposed to be proof he did, but since a machine signed it for him we can't be sure he really did approve.
  The real question is; "Can you prove it's not a duplicate?"
  Once his signature is recorded, is it possible to use it over and over, and how do you tell? O'Bama's handlers tell you it's authentic?
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
21. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-05-28 06:38 · Score: 2
  
  Some of these "technicalities" are vitally important. I suspect that if someone were on trial for murder, and you were on the jury, you would consider the fact that someone else might have actually done it a "technicality".
22. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-05-28 06:40 · Score: 2
  
  "Could he simply have his signature cut into a stamp and ask someone to stamp things for him when he's not there to sign stuff personally? If not I can't see how autopen could be legal."
  Mod parent up. If a rubber stamp is unconstitutional, then a goddamned machine is, too.
23. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-05-28 06:51 · Score: 2
  
  "I mean seriously, would you rather the president spend a couple million in tax payer dollars jetting back to the US..."
  YES! There are reasons why things are done the way they are.
  
  Next thing you know, you'll be saying the President can't appoint people to office when Congress is not in session. Hey, that's just a "technicality"! Our CongressCritters could just fax in their disapproval!
  
  Bullshit. Laws are laws, the Constitution is the Constitution. I will not stand by while other people -- no matter how well-meaning they may be -- try to "interpret" it out of existence.
24. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by theshibboleth · 2011-05-28 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  I think the problem with this was the time it would take to travel from the East Coast to Europe by plane -- the bill wasn't finally agreed upon until close to the deadline of expirations of certain provisions (or at least that's how media outlets portrayed it) so there wasn't time for that.
25. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by euroq · 2011-05-28 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  I had to translate that sig real quick...
  "I am the Adherents of the Repeated Meme"
  String s = "49:20:61:6d:20:74:68:65:20:41:64:68:65:72:65:6e:74:73:20:6f:66:20:74:68:65:20:52:65:70:65:61:74:65:64:20:4d:65:6d:65";
  int i = 0;
  while (i s.length())
  {
  String n = s.substring(i, i + 2);
  System.out.print((char) Integer.parseInt(n, 16));
  i += 3;
  }
  
  --
  Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
26. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by swalve · 2011-05-28 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  The president is not an elected representative, nor a member of the Legislative branch.
27. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by MJMullinII · 2011-05-28 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  "the American public should have an opinion and should be heard on that matter"
  NO, they shouldn't. This convenient concern over "what the public thinks" from those NOT getting their way is getting quite old, not to put to fine a point on it.
  The United States of America is a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. You as a voter get input every two years on who your Representative in the House is, every six years on who your Representative in the Senate is, and every four years on who who think should be President.
  AT NO TIME NOR PLACE ARE YOU ALLOWED TO ACTUALLY HAVE ANY INPUT ON WHAT THESE PEOPLE DO OR SAY. The only question is is the "autopen" constitutional, not what you (any any other "member of the public") personally think of it.
  The JUSTICE DEPARTMENT (you know, those people who get paid SPECIFICALLY to know what's legal and what isn't) has said it is. You don't like it, then feel free to trot on down to your local Federal Courthouse and see about filing an official complaint.
  But in either event, don't come bellyaching about "the will of the people" as though "the people" have EVER had a direct say in what their leaders do or don't do. They never have and for damn good reason -- mainly, we all think everyone BUT us are fucking morons -- which I'm willing to bet you are thinking right now about me -- and so my point is proven as to the wisdom of the Representative Republic over the Democracy.
  Same goes for this Representative. YOU NOTICE FOR SOMEONE SO CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, HIS FIRST STOP WAS A REPORTER, NOT AN ACTUAL COURT OF LAW.
  Kinda reminds me of all the Cold Fusion bullshit in the 80s -- where the first stop the scientist made was to NBC News rather than, you know, ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC REVIEW boards that could have stated right out front whether it was real or not. Between the two, I think they both have the same reasons for their actions (mainly that they're both full of shit and they know it).
  
  --
  "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
28. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by MJMullinII · 2011-05-28 12:50 · Score: 0
  
  Just like people like myself will not stand by while people such as yourself get hot and bothered about EVERY SINGLE THING someone you didn't personally vote does.
  You remind me of the stories the established GOP have made about the incoming "tea partiers" -- you all act like you're the first ones to ever have a bitch about something and the whole world should just stop on its axis to hear you. Grow up.
  
  --
  "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
29. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-29 00:11 · Score: 0
  
  I'd like to question the constitutionality of a lot more than just how it was signed.
  My thought too. He's got no problem with the law, but doesn't like the mechanics of getting it signed?
  Yeah, because questioning the constitutionality of something Obama does might earn him votes in Georgia, but standing up to the unconstitutional Patriot Act might lose him votes. We should stop bitching about representatives and start bitching about voters.
30. Re:Questioning the constitutionality... by eyore15 · 2011-05-29 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  this seems oddly reminiscent of the stupid "birther" arguments. The man said he approved the bill; do we really need to question if he approved it? When he signs a bill in the white house, he uses a bunch of different pens -- the start-and-stop nature of the process, the difference in inks and tips, all would wreak havoc for the cryptanalysis's (can't believe that word is in spell check) too. Should we question that? No one actually looks over his shoulder -- maybe he isn't signing HIS name? Maybe he already signed a copy that will be produced "for the record"?
What? by citoxE · 2011-05-27 12:44 · Score: 1

What the hell is this autopen machine? Wouldn't this amount to some sort of forgery, at the very least?
1. Re:What? by Mindcontrolled · 2011-05-27 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  This autopen machine is pretty much standard procedure. Why it gets dug out now is beyond me.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
2. Re:What? by geminidomino · 2011-05-27 12:47 · Score: 2
  
  How did this Rep. Graves vote on the act? (I know it says "R" but might as well ask for the sake of thoroughness). If it was a "Nay" then it might be getting "dug out now" as a last-ditch effort to DTRT.
3. Re:What? by Jhon · 2011-05-27 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  The Autopen -- or things like it -- have been around a LONG time. They look kind of funky and almost rube-goldbergish in design. It basically allows one to "write" once, but what one writes will appear on several copies via levers and pivots.
  Several past presidents have used them, but I believe this is the first time it was ever used to sign a bill in to law -- and I haven't seen what Mr. Obama used yet. Still, I really cant find any question if it's unconstitutional to sign this way.
4. Re:What? by Mindcontrolled · 2011-05-27 13:01 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
5. Re:What? by MightyMartian · 2011-05-27 13:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
6. Re:What? by artor3 · 2011-05-27 13:23 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
7. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 13:26 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody's perfect!
8. Re:What? by MichaelSmith · 2011-05-27 13:27 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe there should be an official presidential robot. The secret service could make a new one for each new president. The robot would be humanoid in appearance and could stand in for the president in situations where he might be in danger such as public appearances and sleeping with the first lady (the robot would of course be anatomically correct). The robot would be teleoperated from special rooms in airforce one and the whitehouse. This would enable the president to use telepresence to sign bills like this as well as providing a "Buster" like capability to survive serious incidents. Come to think of it there could be a whole fleets of president shaped robots, so that the president could attend events in different parts of the world, separated by only a few minutes.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
9. Re:What? by countertrolling · 2011-05-27 13:33 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  You're on to the truth. The Autopen is the real president. Obama is the mannequin.
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
10. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 13:56 · Score: 0
  
  He voted to shut down Planned Parenthood?
11. Re:What? by Lloyd_Bryant · 2011-05-27 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  But why use the Autopen. US Law allows all kinds of documents to be signed via a digital signature, which doesn't require the signer to be in any particular place. And this type of signature has already been used to sign a bill into law - Bill Clinton signed the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act using a digital signature.
  So why didn't President Obama follow this precedent, signing via digital signature?
  The President should be required to digitally sign the text of the bill, and then, if someone wanted a dead-tree signed version, the Autopen could be used, after the text of the digital version and the paper version had been compared to insure they are the same.
  I know this whole question is just a bunch of legal hair-splitting. And I would be quite happy if this technicality got that abomination of a law thrown out. I'm not holding my breath on it, though, as certain elements of our government have become quite fond of the powers that were granted to them via the Patriot Act, and won't give them up without a fight.
  
  --
  Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
12. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 14:12 · Score: 0
  
  You're not serious, supporting Planned Parenthood, FCC censorship of the internet and ending one of the largest and increasingly untenable financial boondoggles this side of socialism, right?
  Now, I heard someone suggest that some here are 'conservative', but you sir are not. If anything, you're just another supporter of big-government dream-planning.
  I guess conservatism here extends no farther than the pleasure of keeping all your money.
13. Re:What? by demonlapin · 2011-05-27 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  Since Congress isn't actually going to adjourn over the Memorial Day holiday, his failure to sign it within ten days would still see it enacted as law.
14. Re:What? by Sulphur · 2011-05-27 14:39 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell is this autopen machine? Wouldn't this amount to some sort of forgery, at the very least?
  Just think. President Kennedy could have signed it.
15. Re:What? by hedwards · 2011-05-27 14:46 · Score: 0
  
  Wait, so now the Autopen is Kenyan?
16. Re:What? by swb · 2011-05-27 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  I want the digital signature to be embedded into the autopen signature so that the autopen signature can be digitally verified.
  I just made that up, but could they do that?
17. Re:What? by ATMAvatar · 2011-05-27 15:04 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Of course not. However, this "Made in China" engraving makes me seriously question that the Autopen is a natural born citizen.
  
  --
  "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
18. Re:What? by MaskedSlacker · 2011-05-27 15:08 · Score: 1
  
  Not necessarily. The provisions would have expired before then, raising the issue of the legality of an extension that goes into effect after a provision has lapsed. The bill cannot be effective before it is signed (no post facto laws), and depending on the language of the bill it could (arguably) have been rendered null and void.
19. Re:What? by aleckais · 2011-05-27 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  You know, I.7.2 and 3 give the Pres. unlimited Veto Power. That is, even when some thing was re-passed by both Houses, he can still return-disapprove that Vote (because the re-passing implies a Vote which requires both Houses, as stated in: `But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses...') and, by doing so, delay its becoming a Law. This is also because of I.7.3. but see: http://kelakais.blogspot.com/ Note that the Pres. may very well never sign-`leave unreturned within ten Days etc.' but upon every re-passing, return what is presented him (and by `presented' I mean as little as `being aware of that re-passing').
20. Re:What? by Lehk228 · 2011-05-27 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  there is no constitutional definition of signed, the pen is a tool and so is the autopen, so long as it was authorized by the president it is exactly the same.
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
21. Re:What? by viridari · 2011-05-27 16:02 · Score: 2
  
  When you put it that way, he sounds like a great guy with strong libertarian credentials. I think I'll send him a donation for his re-election campaign.
22. Re:What? by spauldo · 2011-05-27 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  He's one guy. You think everyone here has the same opinions?
  There are conservatives here, as evidenced by all the Republican Kool-Aid you've been drinking. He's just not one of them.
  
  --
  Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
23. Re:What? by artor3 · 2011-05-27 16:25 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Yup, cause all libertarians love infinite war and the government having final say over women's bodies.
  When did the fascists in the country start calling themselves libertarians?
  FYI, a real libertarian is someone like Rand Paul, whose voting record is markedly different.
24. Re:What? by Dhalka226 · 2011-05-27 18:31 · Score: 1
  
  All it says is that the President has to sign the bill for it to become law
  Not that I like the PATRIOT Act or particularly care about the autopen, but if we're going strictly by the Constitution then it is actually pretty clear that he did NOT sign the bill. He never even saw the bill (the actual bill; hopefully he has seen the text, but even that is up for debate). It was a machine that replicates his signature that signed it. He never signed it any more than a really good forgery would mean he signed it. He directed that it be signed, and the document now bears his signature.
  The Constitutional question, then, is whether it is the actual act of signing that matters, or the authority of the signing. Really just going to come down to whether or not one buys into strict constructionalism, like most constitutional questions.
  Me, I'd prefer the president be required to actually sign -- but it's not something I'm going to get up in arms about either way.
25. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 19:58 · Score: 0
  
  FCC censorship of the internet
  If you think net neutrality is censorship then you're an idiot. It's basically the complete opposite.
26. Re:What? by KDR_11k · 2011-05-27 20:04 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Or a victim of the propaganda of the big telcos and the general corporate propaganda that government is ALWAYS worse than private enterprise.
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
27. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 20:04 · Score: 0
  
  Well if the authority (i.e. approval of the bill) is all that matters, we might as well just ask the president to publicly say he approves of a bill and be done with signing entirely.
  I really wonder, if someone went to court and claimed the signature is a forgery, what would the judge do?
  - Rule that since it's not Obama's handwriting, the bill is not valid?
  - Rule that as long as a signature looks real to the naked eye, then it's considered real? (In which case, fraudsters capable of imitating signatures will have it easy: "Prove it's fake! It looks the same as the original! No, deep cryptographic analysis does not count anymore, the judge in the Patriot Act case said so!"
28. Re:What? by lakeland · 2011-05-28 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  I oppose most American military spending, but can you imagine the vacuum America would create if they withdraw troops now? You can't just take away another country's political system and then walk away because you don't like the costs. Having made the choice to go in, you have to follow through
29. Re:What? by CptNerd · 2011-05-28 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  When did the fascists in the country start calling themselves libertarians?
  About the time the "fascists" started calling themselves Whigs, Democrats, Republicans, Tories, Liberals, Conservatives...
  
  --
  By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
30. Re:What? by MightyMartian · 2011-05-28 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  The constitution doesn't say this at all. It says that if two thirds of both houses confirm the legislation, it becomes law. It isn't sent back to the President. He only gets one chance to veto a bill.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
31. Re:What? by MightyMartian · 2011-05-28 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  Since autopen is considered a legitimate signature in most other applications, I can't see how this would happen.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
32. Re:What? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-05-28 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  "The provisions would have expired before then, raising the issue of the legality of an extension that goes into effect after a provision has lapsed."
  There is no question, at all. The Act would have expired, and an "extension" would have no effect. They would have had to write up entirely new laws and pass them.
33. Re:What? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-05-28 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  He gets hundreds of chances... if Congress wants to keep passing the same bill by a simple majority. Which it could do, if it wanted, and has done in the past (i.e., passed essentially the same law more than once and presented it to the President to sign).
  
  Sure, if there is a supermajority it becomes law. But if not, there is nothing to prevent Congress from just re-passing a law by simple majority, and presenting it for the President to sign.
34. Re:What? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-05-28 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  "I'd prefer the president be required to actually sign -- but it's not something I'm going to get up in arms about either way."
  Then I'll get up in arms about it for you.
  
  If a rubber stamp is not Constitutional, then neither is a f**ing machine! They can't have that both ways.
35. Re:What? by MaskedSlacker · 2011-05-28 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  You have more faith than I do in there willingness to actually follow the constitution/common sense when it comes to writing/interpreting law. It would not surprise me at all if they'd just said 'fuck it' and acted as if the extension was valid anyway (nor would it have surprised me for the SC to agree with them).
36. Re:What? by MightyMartian · 2011-05-28 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  The contents might be identical or near-identical but they are technically different bills.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
37. Re:What? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-05-28 07:15 · Score: 2
  
  "there is no constitutional definition of signed..."
  Nor is there any need for one. The meaning of what was written was fully understood by contemporary society at the time, and it is no more ambiguous now than it was then.
  
  Would you also insist that the Constitution explicitly define "state", and "people", and "is"? Of course not. That would be ridiculous, right?
  
  I get so tired of people trying to "interpret" what the Constitution means, when its meaning is already quite well understood.
38. Re:What? by aleckais · 2011-05-28 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  ...Even then it needs a signature or a non-return within then Days (Sundays excepted): this is because of I.7.3 (but even I.7.2 points to that). I explain: suppose that a House proposed some Bill x0. suppose further that the x0 was then agreed upon by some majority of both Houses. This involves a Vote, let us designate it by x1. this x1 before it be effective (and result in x0 becoming a Law) has to be presented to the U.S. Pres. x1 then can be (0) signed, (1) left unreturned within ten Days (Sundays excepted) (2) returned in time and received by Congress (3) returned in time but not received by Congress because the same has adjourned. (0) or (1) suffice for x1 to take Effect while (3) suffice for x1 to not take Effect (and thus Bill x0 would not be promoted to a Law). Consider now (2), what happens? When returned, the Congress may re-pass x0 (that is pass x1) but now to do so, a greater majority is needed: the matter is settled by a Vote of two thirds, name it x2. The Const. says that then x2 shall take Effect. But note that x2 is a Vote to which a Concurrence of both Houses is necessary: such a thing, `before' its becoming effective (`before' taken logically and chronologically) needs to be presented to the Pres. and so (0), (1) or (2) again. (3) is illegal because then x2 should also not take Effect: a contradiction. if not (0), nor (1), `(0) or (1) or (2)' which is a condition of `x2 shall take Effect' needs, to be met, (2). And (2) leads to a reconsideration of x2 by both Houses which should result in a new x3 also to take Effect (because x3 involves a Vote of two thirds in each House) but, for the very reason of its being a Vote requiring both Houses, must not take Effect before the corresponding `(0) or (1) or (2)' is satisfied. If Pres. should refuse `(0) or (1)' but choose (2), a new x4 has to be produced by Congress, again a thing to which a Concurrence of both Houses is necessary. So, while not `(0) or (1)': xi delayed. What is remarkable is that: No Judgment in Cases of Impeachment can be reached without the leave (i.e., Consent) of the President. For, such Judgments are last in the complex `Indictment, Trial, Conviction'. Now, on the one hand, the Indictment in such Cases is an Order which only the House of Representatives can issue: `The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.'. On the other hand `The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments...' and the Conviction needs `the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present': a Resolution or Vote. So because the Concurrence of both Houses is necessary in such Order-Resolution-Vote, the Verdict can't take Effect before the Consent of the President (by I.7.3). No Amending of this Constitution can be done without the President's allowing it. For, the proposal of Amendments by the Congress supposes that `two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary'. But both Houses need also agree before they `...shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments' `on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States'. Lastly, the very mode of Ratification, since determined by Congress also needs the President to take Effect (all of this because of I.7.3).
39. Re:What? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-05-28 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  "But note that x2 is a Vote to which a Concurrence of both Houses is necessary: such a thing, `before' its becoming effective (`before' taken logically and chronologically) needs to be presented to the Pres. and so (0), (1) or (2) again."
  This is precisely where you are in error. MightyMartian is correct in that this vote does not have to be approved by the President. The entire reason for having this ability is to bypass the President when he is blocking something that the majority clearly wants.
40. Re:What? by aleckais · 2011-05-28 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  I am sorry but I will insist.
  m(x) = x' : x passed by a majority in both Houses and x' witnesses that.
  mm(x) = x' : same as with m but here the majority is greater, two thirds in each House.
  l(x) : x shall become a Law or x shall take Effect
  p(x) : x presented to Pres.
  s(x) : President signs x.
  nr(x) : President doesn't return x within ten Days etc.
  r(x) : President returns x within ten Days etc., and Congress does not adjourn.
  a(x) : President returns x within ten Days etc., but Congress prevent its return by its Adjournment.
  
  `Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect...'
  
  By def., x' as in m(x) = x' but also in mm(x) = x' is just that: an `Order, Resolution, or [Vote] to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary' and regards not `a question of Adjournment'. Therefore:
  (m(x) = x' v mm(x) = x') -> {l(x') -> [p(x')...
  `...shall be approved by him,...'
  (m(x) = x' v mm(x) = x') -> {l(x') -> [p(x') & [s(x') v nr(x')...
  `...or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives...'
  (m(x) = x' v mm(x) = x') -> {l(x') -> [p(x') & [s(x') v nr(x') v (r(x') -> (Ex'')mm(x') = x'')]]}
  
  `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'
  mm(x) = x' -> l(x') (this is what is thought to end the story, but it is exactly the opposite)
  `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'
  s(x) v nr(x) -> l(x)
  
  `unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.'
  a(x) -> ~l(x)
  
  Note that ~r(x) -> (s(x) v nr(x) v a(x))
  Now define the following things:
  z(x, y) : m(x) = y v (Et)(z(x, t) & mm(t) = y) i.e., y is a `corresponding Vote' to x
  [x, y] : z(x, y) & ~(Et)mm(y) = t That is, y is the last corresponding Vote to x.
  
  Here follows a derivation of (0) below.
  [x, y] | z(x, y) & ~(Et)mm(y) = t | [m(x) = y v (Et)(z(x, t) & mm(t) = y)] & ~(Et)mm(y) = t
  (Et)(z(x, t) & mm(t) = y) | mm(t) = y | l(y) | [s(y) v nr(y) v (r(y) -> (Et)mm(y) = t)] | s(y) v nr(y) v ~r(y) | s(y) v nr(y)
  m(x) = y | {l(y) -> [p(y) & [s(y) v nr(y) v (r(y) -> (Et)mm(y) = t)]]} | l(y) -> (s(y) v nr(y) v ~r(y)]) | l(y) -> (s(y) v nr(y))
  
  l(y) -> [[x, y] -> (s(y) v nr(y))] (0)
  What (0) means is that if the sequence of corresponding things to x is finite then, for the last such y to be a Law (or have Effect) it is necessary that the same should be signed or be not returned etc. Now that last corresponding y fulfills at last the pending conditions.
  Bearing in mind the fact that requirements should be met chronologically before the beginning of that which requires them, the lawful sequences of events are the prefixes of all those sequences which can be described by ( m ( p r mm )* p ( s + nr ) l ) + ( m p a ~l ): a regular expression where xy means that the event y is not to begin unless x has ended. So for example `m p r mm p r mm p r' or `m p a ~l' are allowed but not `m p r mm p a' because then, both l and ~l should be the case.
41. Re:What? by swalve · 2011-05-28 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't an autopen machine just a steampunk digital signature maker?
42. Re:What? by swalve · 2011-05-28 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Do they make decaf adderall? You should try it.
43. Re:What? by mattack2 · 2011-05-28 12:47 · Score: 2
  
  the government having final say over women's bodies.
  What does preventing one's taxes from being spent on something they disagree with have to do with having final say over women's bodies? Go spend your own money on whatever you want to.
  BTW, I am for at least many of the programs/practices of Planned Parenthood, but think it (and tons of other programs) shouldn't be paid for with my taxes. (Including lots of subsidies for things I agree with, such as solar panels... But just like Ron Paul takes the tax write-offs he is entitled to, I would take the subsidy if I installed panels while the program was in place... I would still vote to end the program, however.)
44. Re:What? by swalve · 2011-05-28 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  The c'stitution says "if he approves, he shall sign". It doesn't say HOW it should be signed. What if he had no arms? The authority is in the approval, not the manner in which the mark on the page is made.
45. Re:What? by MJMullinII · 2011-05-28 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  You have more faith than I do in there willingness to actually follow the constitution/common sense when it comes to writing/interpreting law. It would not surprise me at all if they'd just said 'fuck it' and acted as if the extension was valid anyway (nor would it have surprised me for the SC to agree with them).
  Then you don't know what you're talking about. I'm really not trying to be hateful, but I cannot think of a better answer to such an uninformed ignorant (again, not trying to be hateful, just factual) statement.
  What's good for the goose is good for the gander -- the law is followed regardless if the left-wing perceives the right as doing something they don't like OR if the right-wing perceives the left of doing something they don't like.
  
  --
  "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
46. Re:What? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-05-28 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  You have not proven a thing, because you left out the rest of 1.7.3:
  
  "Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill."
  
  The exception is explicitly stated, so by leaving it out of your logic equations, you err from the very beginning. Wow. What a waste of everybody's time, including your own.
47. Re:What? by swalve · 2011-05-28 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  Ha! Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan
  
  Oh God, shut it off!
  Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan
  
  I did!! It bit me!
  
  Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan
  
  Where is the plug?
  Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan
  
  It's right here, I pulled it clean out of both ends, It won't stop signing things.
  Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan
  
  What is it running on??
  Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan
  
  Pure evil, I assume. Grab your ankles, boys.
  Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan
  
  Oh dear god, we just invaded Poland!
  Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Ronald W. Reagan Ronald W. Reagan
  The end.
48. Re:What? by aleckais · 2011-05-28 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  I understand that what seems to be intended by the Constitution is just that there is no more than two Considerations by the Congress in such Cases. But look: how is re-passing achieved ? by a Vote (of two thirds): `But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays' as for attention deficit, please observe that somehow, the quoted passage implies that even the re-passing is reached by Votes of both Houses. Because these Votes are subjected to this generality: `Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives' There follows that even that which is achieved by re-passings has to be presented to the Pres. etc.
49. Re:What? by aleckais · 2011-05-28 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  What exception are you referring to ? the limitations in I.7.2 in no way exclude the subjection of re-passing Votes to presentation to the Pres. Not only the making of a re-passed Bill a Law by such two thirds Vote is not enough to make it a Law immediately, worse the fact that it is a Law has consequences which, before that Law be active, must be dealt with; namely: it has to be signed, held unreturned (what seems so far to have happened) within the allocated period or, should the Pres. return it (because such are the limitations in I.7.2 and I.7.3) force the Congress in a further process of re-passing (by two thirds).
50. Re:What? by ScrewMaster · 2011-05-28 16:01 · Score: 0
  
  Having made the choice to go in, you have to follow through
  Why, exactly?
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
51. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-28 20:41 · Score: 0
  
  Because if America walks out now then the people of Afghanistan will be worse off than they were before.
  Walking out would create a power vacuum where the people that were supported by the Americans lose their support and so lose their political influence, while people opposed to the Americans will lose their opposition and so gain power. The effect will be a transition towards an anti-American country (because the average person will feel abandoned). Also, next time America invades a country, the locals are going to be reminded by America's opponents how America abandoned Afghanistan and be much less inclined to offer support to any American backed political system.
52. Re:What? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-05-28 20:45 · Score: 1
  
  If you build logic equations based on English sentences, while ignoring the clear meaning of those sentences, you aren't proving anything. You have automatically set yourself up to fail via faulty assumptions.
  
  1.7.2 may not say it, but 1.7.3 very clearly does, and there is very little ambiguity involved. You're wrong. Period.
53. Re:What? by aleckais · 2011-05-28 22:45 · Score: 1
  
  Please, could you precise where I.7.3 even remotely requires that the matter ends once the first two thirds process ends ? (if no return within ten Days after presentation of that Vote, then OK, the Bill becomes an `Active' Law). That the Rule about which we speak is expressed in finitely many words doesn't set upper bounds on the length of all correct instances of its application. Note also that the authors of the Const. where careful to temper the scope of `Every' in I.7.3: they specify its exceptions: `except on a question of Adjournment' But from such an explicit limitation it is rather reasonable to derive an exception-less (as to the things quantified) Law to the effect that `Every `non-Adjournment-oriented-Order, Resolution, or Vote-to which-the-Concurrence-of-the-Senate-and-House-of Representatives-may-be-necessary' shall be presented...' The Votes built up while passing or re-passing are not concerned whith the Congress' Adjournment (i.e., its not being assembled when it should).
54. Re:What? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-05-29 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't understand English well enough to see it, then I'm not going to be able to explain it to you. Stop wasting my time.
Revoke the whole damn thing! by Flyerman · 2011-05-27 12:45 · Score: 1

I ain't following no law signed by a robot!
Forest/trees problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 12:46 · Score: 2, Informative

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.
1. Re:Forest/trees problem? by Golddess · 2011-05-27 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  Sounded to me more like getting Al Capone on tax evasion.
  
  --
  "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
So what by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 12:47 · Score: 0

So what if his signature is unconstitutional. The constitution states a bill becomes a law after a week if it unsigned. This is a non issue.
1. Re:So what by MaskedSlacker · 2011-05-27 12:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
The comments are full of hilarity by OverlordQ · 2011-05-27 12:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

More nitpicking and stupidity from the GOP that's all it is.

What, you whiny republicans would rather he hadn't signed it at all, and let the act expire?

YES

--
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
1. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 12:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I do recall the PATRIOT act being one of the issues Teleprompter Jesus ran on. He and his democratic minions bitching about eavesdropping on Grandma's phone calls. Now our Dear Reader is renewing the law he railed against so he could get elected. Nice. Real nice.
  The democrats took Bush, painted him brown and put a D behind his name.
  O=W
  O is merely continuing every policy Bush initiated...
2. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 13:04 · Score: 0
  
  More nitpicking and stupidity from the GOP that's all it is.
  
  What, you whiny republicans would rather he hadn't signed it at all, and let the act expire?
  YES
  Then why did 196 republicans in the house vote for it and only 31 vote against it if republicans are so opposed to it?
3. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by artor3 · 2011-05-27 13:28 · Score: 2
  
  No, you and I might wish he hadn't signed it at all, but the "whiny republicans" definitely do not share our wishes. They voted for the extension by a six-to-one margin. The democrats were two-to-one against the extension. If the masses hadn't been deceived into giving the GOP control of the House, the Patriot Act would have expired this morning.
  Thanks, assholes.
4. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by FiloEleven · 2011-05-27 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  The question was put to Republicans, not to Congressmen. There is some overlap, but less than there ought to be, and it isn't the public that should conform.
  
  --
  Your brain is not a computer.
5. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by RoFLKOPTr · 2011-05-27 13:43 · Score: 2
  
  Tell that to your party, then. Clearly they don't represent you.
  A fair chunk of Dems voted yes, too... and our Dem president signed it remotely immediately after passing the house, remember?
  Just because Republicans are the ones that introduced the PATRIOT Act doesn't mean that your beloved Democratic party opposes it.
6. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by artor3 · 2011-05-27 14:09 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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
7. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by demonlapin · 2011-05-27 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  You assume that the Democrats would not have voted differently had they been in the majority. Don't assume that.
8. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by hedwards · 2011-05-27 14:48 · Score: 2
  
  That's sort of the thing, technically it didn't matter how the Democrats voted the first time as there were enough Republican votes to pass it considering that the President wasn't going to veto the bill. However, considering how few Democrats voted against it, I do think they deserve to be smacked upside the head for not at least symbolically voting against it.
9. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by anagama · 2011-05-27 14:59 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  And the President is not a Democrat? The President could have vetoed the law yes? He could have let it sit around and not extend the PATRIOT act correct? What did our Democratic President do -- he went to great lengths to make sure it was signed.
  If you think it makes a difference whether we have Democrats or Republicans in WA DC, you are deluded. Together they form a monoparty hell bent on shredding every word in the Constitution as we hurtle toward an Imperial Presidency.
  Bush, Obama -- no difference except that even Bush didn't publicly suggest he could execute American citizens on his say so alone without even a show trial. Obama owns that.
  The only "people" who have any power are the mega-corps. For example, the Supreme Court has consistently screwed humans with the State Secrets Doctrine, but when Boeing is on the chopping block, the Supreme Court tells the Feds to back off:
  OK to invoke when torturing people (Obama's stated preference to the court): http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/California/News/2011/05_-_May/U_S__Supreme_Court_allows_Boeing_CIA_torture_suit_dismissal/
  but the Feds can't get any money out of Boeing if the feds are going to invoke State Secrets with respect to one of Boeing's defenses:
  http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/2011/05/23/boeing-says-its-happy-with-suprem-courts-a-12-ruling/
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
10. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by MaskedSlacker · 2011-05-27 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  The Republican who raised the question voted against it. The other Republicans can go defile themselves thoroughly for all I care.
11. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by MaskedSlacker · 2011-05-27 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  The 'whiny republican' (the one questioning the constitutionality of the autopen) in question voted against the bill.
12. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 15:19 · Score: 0
  
  I wish he managed to do that well, he also seems to have borrowed every bad policy from Jimmy Carter along with the Bush's flawed ones.
13. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by demonlapin · 2011-05-27 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  They do have seats to keep in districts that might, however misguidedly, like the PATRIOT Act.
14. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 16:25 · Score: 0
  
  Well, at least you can't accuse of not learning from others. (Oh, wait...)
15. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 16:41 · Score: 0
  
  Lol! I love it when idiots assume I'm a Democrat.
16. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by Mashiki · 2011-05-27 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  Obama isn't just continuing, but where Bush drew the line(and he did several times), the Dem's haven't found a piece of privacy invading or unconstitutional law they didn't like. You'll find that many republican still do support things like the patriot act within reason, that being the key part. However most things within the last several years have come to ahead. And well, would have if Obama and Holder actually trusted the people doing the intel work.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
17. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-05-27 17:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why such a discrepancy between House and Senate for Dems? Most Dem Senators voted yea...
  Anyway, you can't assume that Dems in the House would have still voted the same way if they were the majority. US politics being what it is, minority parties tend to vote against things out of spite, but flip flop on the issue as soon as they're running things and could use some extra levers.
18. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by KDR_11k · 2011-05-27 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  At first I thought you meant painting him brown in the ideological sense.
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
19. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by jez9999 · 2011-05-27 21:07 · Score: 1
  
  --
  Your brain is not a computer [goo.gl].
  Here's a dictionary definition of 'computer':
  
  com.put.er
  -noun
  1.
  Also called processor. an electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations.
  None of the points on the scienceblogs.com page you link to stop the brain from falling into this category. Things like 'the brain is analog, not digital' - so what? A computer doesn't have to be digital. 'The brain has a body' - which it receives inputs from and sends outputs to. Still a computer.
  I guess it depends on your definition of 'computer', but they seem to be defining it as 'personal computer whose processor is made by Intel or AMD.'
  
  --
  == Jez ==
  Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
20. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  O is merely continuing every policy Bush initiated...
  Don't say that, I mean, Obama did get a Nobel Peace Prize so obviously he's been a better president than Bush. For example, he totally made the world a better place when he.... umm... Never mind.
21. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-28 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  The president didn't have to sign it.
  Thanks Asshole
22. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by amiga3D · 2011-05-28 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Frankly I'm starting to think Mr. Obama has all of Mr. Bush's faults with none of the very few good points W had. Every single policy of the Bush administration that I detested, which was most of them, have continued unabated. The man isn't even a good liberal.
23. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by Rockoon · 2011-05-28 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  One thing you can say about Bush is that he believed in the shit that he did. Many people disagreed with his beliefs, but with Obama you are really disagreeing with his corporate overlords.
  
  Health Insurance Industry? Yes they control Obama.
  Energy industries? Yes they control Obama.
  Copyright industries? Yes they control Obama.
  Wall Street? Yes they control Obama.
  Telecom Industries? Yes they control Obama.
  The Federal Reserve? Yes.. THEY CONTROL OBAMA.
  The only ones that do not seem to be able to get Obama's ear are ordinary people. Meanwhile Obama continues to say that he is for the common man and all that blatent bullshit that the Democrats have been saying forever.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
24. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by Chelloveck · 2011-05-28 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  I was about to say the same thing. It's not the law that matters, it's that you can't get caught agreeing with the other side. You know the law is going to be passed by the majority party. Even if you want it to pass you, a minority congressman, vote against it so it doesn't seem like you're siding with the enemy. If the parties were switched you'd get the same thing in reverse -- the Ds would vote it in and the Rs would vote against it in protest. Either way, the end result is the same.
  It's just green vs. purple, nothing more complex than that.
  
  --
  Chelloveck
  I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
25. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by Narnie · 2011-05-28 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  No, Obama is a good liberal... Bush was just a bad conservative.
  
  --
  greed@All_Evils:~#
26. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by RoFLKOPTr · 2011-05-28 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  Lol! I love it when idiots assume I'm a Democrat.
  Well you posted AC so all I had to go on was "Tell that to your party then. Clearly they don't represent you."
27. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by amiga3D · 2011-05-29 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Actually Bush was a bad conservative as he massively grew government. President Obama is not a good liberal though. He's continued an undeclared, quasi-legal war in Afghanistan and Iraq. He's continued support of the onerous and misnamed Patriot act and unconstitutional wiretapping. He's still holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay despite promises to close that facility. All popular liberal agenda items that he's failed to act on as a President despite promises to do so while campaigning. If it weren't for his pro abortion and gay rights stances I'd think he was a closet conservative. Even his so called "Obama Care" health care program ended up looking nothing like his promises. I'd bet serious money that if Joe Biden was President there would have been a vastly different agenda in the administration.
28. Re:The comments are full of hilarity by vandamme · 2011-05-31 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Joe isn't the orator that Bush was.
a better solution by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 12:49 · Score: 0

Have the president sign a piece of paper using a device that transmits the motion to a similar pen holding machine. You could even have him sign a facsimile of the original bill then they could be filed together. The original bill with his transmitted signature and the facsimile copy with is original signature. (the only problem would be having someone swap pens for every letter of his name as happens for some of the bills he signs. Of course, then you;d have two sets of commemorative pens for the bil. l:)
I can't remember the name of the device but they used to be used in libraries and such to transmits little written notes from the reference desk to the stacks so the staff could retrieve books.
1. Re:a better solution by Jhon · 2011-05-27 12:53 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I can't remember the name of the device but they used to be used in libraries and such to transmits little written notes from the reference desk to the stacks so the staff could retrieve books.
  
  The device is called an "undergrad".
Re:What a microcosm of what's wrong with us by iceperson · 2011-05-27 13:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hmm, interesting that you call one of the few who stood up and voted against the law a "partisan hack". It would seem you can't see past the D or R next to a person's name. There's a name for that I think. It's right on the tip of my tongue...
Does anyone read the constitution? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 13:06 · Score: 0

It really doesn't matter if the signature is valid or not. If he doesn't explicitly veto it, it becomes law after 10 days. So worst case here, the PATRIOT Act renewal didn't take effect but will soon.
Article 1, Section 7 of the US constitution.

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.
1. Re:Does anyone read the constitution? by RoFLKOPTr · 2011-05-27 13:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
President Obama by Bios_Hakr · 2011-05-27 13:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Look, I'm not into the whole "political" thing.
But it isn't "Mr." Obama; it's Mr. President or President Obama.
You could also use The President or POTUS.
Saying "Mr." Obama isn't just disrespecting him, it's disrespecting The Office of the President. It's tacky.

--
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
1. Re:President Obama by Jafafa+Hots · 2011-05-27 13:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Gosh, I thought the thing was that the president works FOR US.
  We've had more than enough of putting more power and gravitas than was intended into the role of the presidency, doncha think?
  The whole point was to not have kings.
  
  --
  This space available.
2. Re:President Obama by artor3 · 2011-05-27 13:30 · Score: 0
  
  For the teabaggers, "Mr. Obama" is amazingly respectful.
3. Re:President Obama by spitzak · 2011-05-27 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  Yea I don't know where that started, but it was not just Obama. Some time in the middle of the last Bush administration all news articles, from all political persuasions, started saying "Mr Bush" (and then "Mr Obama"). What happened to "President Bush" and "President Obama"?
  In fact it would help if they did this for historical reasons. Most presidents get in the news when they are not president, and future readers of news articles could tell immediately if the action/statement/whatever was from the person while they were president or when they were out of office.
4. Re:President Obama by Lloyd_Bryant · 2011-05-27 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  Look, I'm not into the whole "political" thing.
  But it isn't "Mr." Obama; it's Mr. President or President Obama.
  You could also use The President or POTUS.
  Saying "Mr." Obama isn't just disrespecting him, it's disrespecting The Office of the President. It's tacky.
  I believe the accepted journalistic standard is "President Obama" on the first mention in an article, but "Mr. Obama" in the rest of the article. But there's no hard-and-fast rule - just "Mr. Obama" is itself an indicator of respect (at least more so than just referring to him as "Obama").
  Also consider that this is the United States - disrespecting our elected officials is part of that whole "freedom of speech" concept...
  
  --
  Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
5. Re:President Obama by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 13:37 · Score: 0
  
  Mr. is still a correct salutation for the President.
  Mr. Obama
  Mr. Bush
  Mr. Clinton
  Mr. Bush
  Mr Regan... I could go on. Honestly, I find PoTUS (really, the 'of" should be lower case) FAR more objectionable. Of course if you have a legitimate complaint, you might consider some of the things his predecessor was called...
  When he become king we can call him "Your Royal Highness" and your objection will have merit.
6. Re:President Obama by compro01 · 2011-05-27 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why it's "Mr. President" rather than "His Elected Highness" or similar
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
7. Re:President Obama by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 13:46 · Score: 0
  
  Honestly, kind of like Bush, the more you screw up, the more your title diminishes. In the end, we just called are last president "Dubyah". I guess "Mr. Obama" is better than "O'BAM" or "the Bammer".
8. Re:President Obama by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 13:48 · Score: 0
  
  Am I a bad person for always thinking of a scene from "Blazing Saddles" whenever I read about Pres/Mr. Obama?
  http://youtu.be/upvZdVK913I
  "The sheriff is a N(bong)!"
9. Re:President Obama by digitig · 2011-05-27 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, I find PoTUS (really, the 'of" should be lower case)
  But not "the"?
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
10. Re:President Obama by geminidomino · 2011-05-27 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  In defense, the office of POTUS hasn't been all that respectable in the 3 decades I have personally witnessed, either.
11. Re:President Obama by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 13:57 · Score: 0
  
  Good point, I stand corrected, if you MUST use this horrid abbreviation, it should be PotUS... maybe even PotUSoA, actually it should start with "the" too: tPotUSoA. I really hate this acronym in general. How long has this been in the journalistic mind, anyway? I only really noticed this showing up during this administration.
12. Re:President Obama by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 14:03 · Score: 0
  
  Saying "Mr." Obama isn't just disrespecting him, it's disrespecting The Office of the President. It's tacky.
  An American "President" acts for his nation and not against the constitution. My respect for Obama ends with not intentionally misspelling his name "Osama".
13. Re:President Obama by the_bard17 · 2011-05-27 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  That might just give you some insight about how much respect the position has these days... then I'd suggest pondering a bit on why it's shown that much respect.
14. Re:President Obama by demonlapin · 2011-05-27 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  No. He is addressed directly as "Mr. President" as a sign of respect for the office. He is referred to as "President Obama" or "Mr. Obama" in news stories, largely depending on the style manual of the outfit doing the reporting. Extensive historical precedent for this, for Democrats and Republicans.
  
  As long as we're talking about official etiquette, one does not retain the honorary use of the title "President" after leaving office. Clinton and GWBush are IIRC both officially styled "Governor", since most states permit the honorary use of that title after leaving office. "Former President" is also in common use.
15. Re:President Obama by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 14:25 · Score: 0
  
  disrespect is bullshit. just like blasphemy is bullshit.
  lets talk about what matters. and this isn't it.
  government folks are not worthy of our respect. so I, for one, won't give it anymore.
  next subject, please.
16. Re:President Obama by hedwards · 2011-05-27 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  Which means that we don't throw people in prison for insulting the President. Which is probably a good thing otherwise most of the citizens would be in prison. It doesn't mean that it's acceptable behavior or respectful to address him as such.
17. Re:President Obama by hedwards · 2011-05-27 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  It's hardly just Clinton and Bush that have retained the honorific, in recent decades that's become the style for all Presidents living or deceased.
18. Re:President Obama by anagama · 2011-05-27 15:04 · Score: 1
  
  I'm having a hard time thinking of an office that deserves more disrespect than POTUS. Between Obama and Bush who've been doing everything they can to convert the P to an E ("emperor"), our current rash of presidents deserve less respect than gutter rolling crack whores.
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
19. Re:President Obama by blueg3 · 2011-05-27 15:08 · Score: 2
  
  This is America. I can call him what I damn well please.
  You think being tacky is a deterrent to Americans? You ever been to a theme park?
20. Re:President Obama by MaskedSlacker · 2011-05-27 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  George Washington is rolling in his grave over how much of a jackass you are.
21. Re:President Obama by MaskedSlacker · 2011-05-27 15:16 · Score: 2
  
  George Washington is rolling in his grave over how much of a pretentious jackass you, and the others you're parroting, are.
22. Re:President Obama by demonlapin · 2011-05-27 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  I've not watched a lot of TV news, but in the parts I have, it's always "former President". NPR is quite careful to make the distinction, FWIW.
23. Re:President Obama by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 16:22 · Score: 0
  
  Once a President always a President. Just because you are not acting President does not mean you lose the title of "President".
24. Re:President Obama by jo42 · 2011-05-27 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  Before El Presidente Obama, it was perfectly acceptable to call his predecessor "Bushtard".
25. Re:President Obama by da+cog · 2011-05-27 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  Just because Mr. Obama has become the President doesn't mean that he has stopped being an ordinary man, so it is not disrespectful in the slightest to call him by the same respectful title that one would use for any other ordinary man.
  It's not like Mr. Obama has ascended to the realm of the gods (unlike a Gnomish Healer I once played, but that is a different story...); he is just another human being like the rest of us who unlike most of us happens to hold a particularly important position.
  
  --
  Snarkiness is inversely proportional to wisdom because it emphasizes feeling right rather than being right.
26. Re:President Obama by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 17:26 · Score: 0
  
  The New York Times refers to him as Mr. Obama (after formally introducing him as President Obama) in every story. I'm pretty sure that's standard. It reminds us that we're all humans.
27. Re:President Obama by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 17:58 · Score: 0
  
  Did you say stuff like this when Mr. Bush was going around?
  Or just "Bush did blah blah".
  I'll fucking bet you didn't.
28. Re:President Obama by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  "Respectful"? A useless ideal to begin with. However, is his name not Obama? What exactly is the problem?
29. Re:President Obama by donscarletti · 2011-05-27 18:05 · Score: 1
  
  Outside America, his formal title would be His Excellency Mr Barrack Obama, President of the United States of America, shortening it to Mr Obama is quite common and standard given he makes no claim to royalty, is not a woman, did not hold a medical or doctoral degree and did not serve in the arm forces at a rank O-6 or above.
  Americans however have the right to disrespect any political office they feel like, it's surely more productive to discuss the political structure and office than to simply spread slanderous rumors about Mr Obama's birthplace and religious beliefs.
  
  --
  When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
30. Re:President Obama by sjames · 2011-05-27 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  It's only natural, the more people feel disenfranchised and the more they feel that government is done to them rather than for them, the less respect will be shown for any of it's trappings.
  People are catching on that it isn't just this guy or that guy that screws us, but anyone at all who occupies that office.
  Let a president act respectably and people will have respect.
31. Re:President Obama by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 20:10 · Score: 0
  
  sorry, but one doesn't get respect because of title.. he gets respect because he earned it.. you know, by not being a corrupt opportunistic career-focused political lunkhead like the rest of them in the house, senate, and judiciary.
32. Re:President Obama by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  > The whole point was not to have kings.
  No, now you just elect them -- and oddly enough, usually from dynastic families.
33. Re:President Obama by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 22:46 · Score: 0
  
  you're not into politics, but you're into semantics. in a story about using an autosigner.
  he is Mr. Obama. and disrespecting is how politics are done. he is also the current president of the united states. I might use capitals quite randomly, but you can't garner respect by capitalising random things like the Office.
  and frankly using POTUS would have been quite ridiculous, the office staff certainly wouldn't have used the autosigner without his permission to do so.
34. Re:President Obama by VortexCortex · 2011-05-27 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  The whole point of a president is to be the leader of the armed forces -- all the other law making bullshit is just grandstanding. He can suggest, and sometimes appoint friends, and wish, and but the president can not make laws or actually "change" much. Mostly the president goes along with whatever are the plans of the established system (note: not party-- those too are distractions).
  Have you learned nothing from the scholars this recently passed Towel Day? The true purpose of the presidency is to distract the people from how it all really works, and keep them from doing anything effective to change the system. For example see: Ex-Galactic President, Zaphod Beeblebrox, or any recent president of the USA.
35. Re:President Obama by Patch86 · 2011-05-28 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  Hah, I always have the exact opposite thought whenever I hear Americans refer to the UK's leader as "Mr Prime Minister". Obama keeps doing it on this state visit, as did his predecessor. Bugs the crap out of me.
  "Mr Prime Minister" is far too deferential (and not to mention cheesy) for British tastes. He should be referred to as "Mr Cameron", and only "the Prime Minister" in the same way as "the postman".
  Different strokes I suppose.
36. Re:President Obama by hittman007 · 2011-05-28 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Look, I'm not into the whole "political" thing.
  But it isn't "Mr." Obama; it's Mr. President or President Obama.
  You could also use The President or POTUS.
  Saying "Mr." Obama isn't just disrespecting him, it's disrespecting The Office of the President. It's tacky.
  Its been almost 20 years since I respected the person who holds the office. The office I respect, the people who seem to make it there lately are another story.
  Take a look at presidents even in this time period and you will find that various presidents respect the office to varying degrees. There is one that dresses in a suite and tie even if he has to just run by the office and pick up a piece of paperwork that he needed. He simply would not enter unless he was dressed for it. There is also one in particular that clearly shows no respect for the office.
  
  --
  --- When you start with the conclusion that you want, then throw out any facts that don't agree, is it true?
37. Re:President Obama by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-28 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  well actually its Mr Obama, Not everyone is american and thus he is not everyones President no matter how much he wants to be. Whether it be disrepectful, well thats your opinion i for one will still call him Mr Obama.
38. Re:President Obama by Geminii · 2011-05-28 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Hell, if he was in political office in Australia he'd be known as "Barmy Bazza" by one and all, and it would make his ratings skyrocket.
39. Re:President Obama by amiga3D · 2011-05-28 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Actually Mr. Obama isn't really disrespectful. Calling him Obama is or Barack. At least they haven't come up with something like "W." Yet.
40. Re:President Obama by fireylord · 2011-05-28 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  The person may not have earned any respect, but over the relatively somewhat short (feh, ex colonies and their miniscule history -Yes, i'm a Brit) life of the history of you guys having a POTUS, i'd say the office has done more than enough to garner respect. How about giving that some, or would you rather have totally unelected executive and legislative branches?
41. Re:President Obama by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-28 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, did your mommy help you post that? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? Washington as a general during the revolutionary war knew damn well that just because speech is free doesn't make all forms of speech acceptable. But then a little cum stain like you wouldn't know that.
  Or is that speech also acceptable?
42. Re:President Obama by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-28 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  Look, I'm not into the whole "political" thing.
  But it isn't "Mr." Obama; it's Mr. President or President Obama.
  You could also use The President or POTUS.
  Saying "Mr." Obama isn't just disrespecting him, it's disrespecting The Office of the President. It's tacky.
  Funny, I noticed that with President Bush.
  The opposition would call him Mr. Bush and would leave out "President". Now, the democrats gets upset at it?
  Interesting.
  They do it but get upset when done to their president.
43. Re:President Obama by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-30 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  If you check the whole of the media (in this case a news article) where this term is used you'll see that the FIRST reference to an official will use the title. All others after use Mr/Mrs. The FA is no different, the summary just didn't include the first couple sentences.
44. Re:President Obama by alexo · 2011-05-30 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Saying "Mr." Obama isn't just disrespecting him, it's disrespecting The Office of the President.
  Some people feel that the disrespect is well deserved.
45. Re:President Obama by MaskedSlacker · 2011-05-31 20:42 · Score: 1
  
  Or is that speech also acceptable?
  Of course it is. You know I love it when you talk dirty to me.
  More seriously, Washington is the one who killed any idea of prestigious titles and ceremony around the office of the president. This has nothing to do with free vs. acceptable speech. It's about rejecting self-aggrandizing, pompous jackasses in public life.
Bravo Rand Paul. by flydpnkrtn · 2011-05-27 13:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

"Congress bumped up against the deadline mainly because of the stubborn resistance from a single senator, Republican freshman Rand Paul of Kentucky, who saw the terrorist-hunting powers as an abuse of privacy rights. Paul held up the final vote for several days while he demanded a chance to change the bill to diminish the government's ability to monitor individual actions. The bill passed the Senate 72-23."
- from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/26/politics/main20066686.shtml

--
Here's to the crazy ones
1. Re:Bravo Rand Paul. by geminidomino · 2011-05-27 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  I will admit, in all the posts about "Rand Paul" I thought they were talking about "Ron Paul" and being "4chan-clever," like Xbox fanboys calling Nintendo's offering the "GayCube"...
2. Re:Bravo Rand Paul. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 13:57 · Score: 0
  
  Well... bravo Rand Paul, 3 other Republicans, 18 Democrats, and Bernie Sanders.
3. Re:Bravo Rand Paul. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 19:48 · Score: 0
  
  Lol no he named his kid that.
  They are crazy, of course. But hey, we need some of their crazy nowadays.
4. Re:Bravo Rand Paul. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 19:51 · Score: 0
  
  I will admit, in all the posts about "Rand Paul" I thought they were talking about "Ron Paul" and being "4chan-clever," like Xbox fanboys calling Nintendo's offering the "GayCube"...
  Close. Rand Paul is Ron Paul's son.
It was signed? by TemperedAlchemist · 2011-05-27 13:11 · Score: 1

Go Skynet go!
Typical goverment efficancy. by umask077 · 2011-05-27 13:28 · Score: 1

Apparently our government has forgotten about fax machines. Instead we probably spent half a million on that autopen device. For 8 bucks a month you can straight from your computer. DHL does overnight deliveries if it has to be there fast. Really the application of the autopen device seems futile. DHL would charge about 50USD each direction.. Seems like both of these are better options. That being said, its really unfortunate that he was allowed to do this. The patriot act should be expired.

--
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
1. Re:Typical goverment efficancy. by Joshua+Fan · 2011-05-27 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  The concept of the autopen means that it's not the hand that signs it that matters, but that a pen inscribed the President's signature correctly. A fax machine only fulfills half of that deal.
2. Re:Typical goverment efficancy. by krotkruton · 2011-05-27 17:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'm all for some method for the president to sign bills if he's overseas or can't sign it 'in person' or whatever. This is completely separate from the issue of whether or not the actual signing of the renewal of the bill is a good thing. Sure, maybe faxes or other methods are better, but trying to invalidate the signing over this is a technicality; if the president signed it and confirms that he signed it, the issue should be over.
  With that said, I'm really disappointed that this bill went through.
it's like this.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 13:34 · Score: 0

..They gave you a wedgie, they took all your stuff, they kicked you in the nuts, they shoved your head in an unflushed toilet, they shoved a watermelon up your ass, they tied your dick in a knot, and sure enough they'll coming around smiling come voting season
Autopen? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 13:34 · Score: 0

Ridiculous, if he agrees.... consider it signed.
People are so whacked out about formality.... what a joke.
Skynet's power base made official by Joshua+Fan · 2011-05-27 13:41 · Score: 1

Last night marked the day a robot granted the same powers as the President authorized other robots (wiretapping machines) to have control over some part of citizens' lives (to covertly monitor them without their consent).
Autopen by Faux_Pseudo · 2011-05-27 13:47 · Score: 1

NPR did a nice little story about this today. Talks about what the Constitution says vs what it means. http://www.npr.org/2011/05/27/136717719/obama-wields-his-autopen

--
Ascii artist &
1. Re:Autopen by sincewhen · 2011-05-27 19:28 · Score: 1
  
  There is also another article at the linked site which I found informative.
  
  --
  -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
Obama; still an idiot... news at 11 n/t by Stumbles · 2011-05-27 13:51 · Score: 0, Flamebait

n/t

--
My karma is not a Chameleon.
1. Re:Obama; still an idiot... news at 11 n/t by DNS-and-BIND · 2011-05-28 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Opposing the President is racism. Didn't you get the memo?
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:What a microcosm of what's wrong with us by canajin56 · 2011-05-27 14:02 · Score: 2

News-anchor?

--
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Might as well have used a stamp by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 14:03 · Score: 0

so yeah, not a real signature. That's the whole point of signatures, to verify that the person physically signed it. If he doesn't, then hell yes, it's a forgery. If he really cared about the law he could have had it brought to him, or took the red-eye back.
1. Re:Might as well have used a stamp by blueg3 · 2011-05-27 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the only point to a signature is to offer a degree of nonrepudiation. It doesn't matter what it is, really, or how it came to be as long as it provides some assurance of an agreement. (In this case, the assurance that the President did intend to approve the law.) If it's reasonably difficult to forge, that's great, that makes it a better signature. But most real signatures are easy to forge as an autopen signature. Lots of signatures these days are digital -- and not the cryptographic kind, but the "you signed on a digital input device" kind. Back in the day, lots of signatures were just an "X". As long as it can successfully be used to argue that the person showed intent, it's a reasonable signature.
This is 2011 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 14:14 · Score: 0

Why couldn't they send him a PDF via the Internet, print it out, and have him sign it in France?
Or go to a shop to get a print made if they need something fancier.
Maybe he just didn't want his picture taken while signing this bill.
1. Re:This is 2011 by Sparx139 · 2011-05-27 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe he just didn't want his picture taken while signing this bill.
  Can you blame him? Shit like this makes me think that we're losing the so-called war on terror
  
  --
  Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
A rose by any other name ... by reiisi · 2011-05-27 14:20 · Score: 1

Language is very maleable.
For instance, choosing to be called "Dear Leader" can be sold as an act of self-abasement.

--
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
1. Re:A rose by any other name ... by hedwards · 2011-05-27 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  It's not that malleable. This isn't like Bush who failed to get elected in the standard fashion his first term. President Obama did manage to win the electoral votes necessary to be elected President without having the SCOTUS have to rewrite the constitution.
  Referring to him as Mr. is an insult to him and probably motivated on some level by racism.
2. Re:A rose by any other name ... by anagama · 2011-05-27 15:07 · Score: 0
  
  I refer to him as ScumBucket Obama, successor to ScumBucket Bush. Considering Obama's attacks on the 4th and 5th amendments, and mixing in the fact he is a constitutional scholar, he is way more scummy than that Tard Bush.
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
3. Re:A rose by any other name ... by BriggsBU · 2011-05-27 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  I'm so tired of people pulling out the race card every time ANYONE says they disagree with Obama or think he's a poor president. It is possible to disagree with someone or dislike them for reasons that aren't based on race, you know.
4. Re:A rose by any other name ... by Lincolnshire+Poacher · 2011-05-27 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  > Referring to him as Mr. is an insult to him and probably motivated on some level by racism.
  You'd better inform The Economist of that fact, then. Everyone, regardless of class or creed, is referred to as <prefix>.<surname> in that rather respected organ.
  You can start with this article about Mr Reagan.
5. Re:A rose by any other name ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 19:42 · Score: 0
  
  put the stick down sir, the horse is dead
6. Re:A rose by any other name ... by reiisi · 2011-05-27 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  Malleable. Ask the linguists and the mathematicians.
  Stepping back from theory, however, in the case of "Mister", just as sure as there are groups for which it has racist connotations and other groups for which it invokes master/disciple relations or the like, there are also groups for him it is an assertion of a default assumption of respect, and yet other groups for him it is a reserved title of respect.
  Where "Mister" ranks relative to the title of "president" is yet another thing which varies from hood to hood. There are indeed those among whom a president really is just the poor guy whose turn it is to do the job this time, and maybe they say, "mister" to remind the poor guy that he isn't being ostracised, and maybe they use "president" as an effort to show their encouragement.
  Just like there are other groups for whom the office of president is considered a target or a goal, and the current president just another guy who is in the way.
  Very malleable.
  
  --
  Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
7. Re:A rose by any other name ... by Jafafa+Hots · 2011-05-28 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  I'm far more concerned with having the president have respect for US than us having respect for him.
  
  --
  This space available.
Re:What a microcosm of what's wrong with us by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 14:21 · Score: 0

Hmm, interesting that you call one of the few who stood up and voted against the law a "partisan hack". It would seem you can't see past the D or R next to a person's name. There's a name for that I think. It's right on the tip of my tongue...
MSNBC journalist?
Game of Thrones by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 14:46 · Score: 0

And the Hand of The King being portrayed in real life?
Mr. Jefferson by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 15:00 · Score: 0

President Jefferson founded UVa, where students refer to him as Mr. Jefferson..
Great by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 15:45 · Score: 0

Questioning the constitutionality of how it was signed, not what was signed there, great...
It's a stupid question by argStyopa · 2011-05-27 15:53 · Score: 1

The Bush administration Justice Dept reviewed this, and while ultimately Bush decided to manually sign whatever bill they were discussing, the JP had produced a 20+ page justification that it WAS perfectly fine - the point was that the president had DECIDED to authorize the bill, not mechanically how he signed it. For example, the Constitution states that if he isn't going to sign it, he must return it - and nobody expects him to act like a process server, trying to 'catch' a congressman to literally return the bill unsigned.

--
-Styopa
1. Re:It's a stupid question by physicsphairy · 2011-05-27 16:31 · Score: 1
  
  the point was that the president had DECIDED to authorize the bill
  What was it that he decided to authorize? I suppose he may have a general idea, but I doubt he knows specifically if he's having to sign it remotely. (Is the autopen robot reading the bill for him as well?)
  Is he limited to authorizing the signature on specific bills, or can he delegate it so "anything the Democratic leadership is ok with I authorize to be signed," etc.?
  Also, if your argument is that it is merely the authorization that is important, I don't see why the autopen would be used in the first place. It would seem that using it is an admission that the bill needs to be physically signed (otherwise, building a device to hold a pen instead of just faxing over a signature is fairly ridiculous). In that case, why do you consider it out-of-bounds to ask whether the signing process itself was legitimate?
  
  The Bush administration Justice Dept reviewed this, and while ultimately Bush decided to manually sign whatever bill they were discussing, the JP had produced a 20+ page justification that it WAS perfectly fine
  
  The fact that Bush did not think the 20+ page justification his Justice department drafted up for him was good enough is probably evidence that it wasn't.
  I don't think it's that big of deal to ask a president to physically possess the document he is making every citizen accountable to and put a mark on it. Yes, it is just (constitutionally required) ceremony, but if burying my civil liberties is not even worth a little fanfare anymore, I would have to say the government has gone from being misguided to being downright sadistic.
  
  --
  When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
2. Re:It's a stupid question by msauve · 2011-05-27 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  The Bush Justice Dept also produced a 20 plus page paper detailing why torture wasn't torture.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
an important legal concept that applies here by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 15:58 · Score: 0

Unless the applicable section of the Uniform Commercial Code has been changed since my days at university in business law 101 (granted, when dinosaurs ruled the earth...), ones signature is whatever one intends it to be. This is the concept behind what makes endorsement stamps used to deposit checks and illiterate people making Xs on things, lawful. The business owner/illiterate person wishes that mark to represent there signature. So, according to the law, it IS their signature. Therefore, unless that law has been changed, this complaint is totally bogus.
The irony... by Opportunist · 2011-05-27 16:28 · Score: 1

Questioning the constitutionality of the way a bill gets signed that by itself is about as unconstitutional as a bill can get...

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
An autopen plus a teleprompter by Quila · 2011-05-27 16:29 · Score: 2

And we don't need the real Obama at all.
1. Re:An autopen plus a teleprompter by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-05-28 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  You got that right. Mod parent up.
  
  In fact, not only do we not need him as President, we need to NOT have him as President. He has flouted the Constitution even more than ol' Georgie did.
We've got to pass this bill by TheABomb · 2011-05-27 16:32 · Score: 3, Funny

... so the president can find out what's in it!
"They let me sign checks with a rubber stamp!" -H. Simpson.

--
MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
1. Re:We've got to pass this bill by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-28 20:45 · Score: 0
  
  ;)) ok thanks
  [url=http://heronacademy.com/lab/search-engine-optimization/backlinks-for-beginners-part-1]article marketing plan[/url]
Even if he *didn't* sign the bill it would be law. by da+cog · 2011-05-27 17:09 · Score: 1

In the end it really doesn't matter whether the autopen counts as a signature or not because the Constitution has the following to say:
"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."
So even if the autopen didn't count as a formal signature, when ten days had passed and the bill was not returned to Congress with his objections it would have become law by default anyway, so in the worst case that would mean that the Patriot act was out of effect for ten days and then immediately resumed.

--
Snarkiness is inversely proportional to wisdom because it emphasizes feeling right rather than being right.
covering his butt. by ecorona · 2011-05-27 17:18 · Score: 1

I smell BS. If someone ever tries to charge Bush and/or Obama for blatantly violating their oaths of office and the constitution, Obama will be able to say he didn't technically sign the bill into law and can not be held liable.
Wrong problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 17:28 · Score: 0

Who cares about the instrument with which they are signing it? The problem is the PATRIOT act extension itself. The autopen is a non-issue.
1. Re:Wrong problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 19:48 · Score: 0
  
  The point is that this is the last hope of blocking the renewal. I agree that it's a trivial issue, but if there is a chance that it could undermine the passing of the Bill then it's worth a shot.
Re:Even if he *didn't* sign the bill it would be l by compro01 · 2011-05-27 17:36 · Score: 1

Yes, but the USAPATRIOT act would already have expired before those 10 days were up, and they can't extend an expired act. They'd have to run through the process of passing the law over again.

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
In my country... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 17:51 · Score: 0

That is, the US, we don't recognize titles.
It's Mr. Obama. President Obama or 'The President' are acceptable for the time being, as he currently is President; but he remains Mr. Obama regardless. There's nothing disrespectful toward him, or the office, with that. There is, however, a great disrespect toward the Constitution and the very ideals of this country by insisting otherwise.
Oh, and protip: When he leaves office, it'll be Mr. Obama. Former President Obama would be accurate; this bullshit of using "President Whomever" for those not holding the office needs to stop entirely.
Queen for a day. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 18:16 · Score: 0

The whole point was to not have kings.
If we ever elect a lesbian president, does that mean the US now has a queen?
Why use the Autopen when you have the fax machine? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 19:19 · Score: 0

Why couldn't they simply fax the unsigned bill to the hotel that President Obama is staying, have him sign it and then fax back the signed law using the hotel fax machine...
It's about respect, not racism by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 21:47 · Score: 0

Referring to him as Mr. is an insult to him and probably motivated on some level by racism.
Show me a president worth respecting and I'll show him/her respect by using their official title.
When is the law valid? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-27 21:53 · Score: 0

I'm not an american, and thus not too familiar with how the validity of these laws come about. But wouldn't the law pass as soon as the president signs a copy of it? Why can't he just print up a copy wherever in the world he is and sign that? Even if the law requires signatures both from a electoral body (congress?) and the president, why can't they each sign their own? In legal contracts there's no need for the signatures of both parties to actually be on the same physical piece of paper, as long as the signatures are dated and notarized.
Was GWB too busy clearing brush? by damn_registrars · 2011-05-27 23:28 · Score: 1

He could have just as easily had GWB come back to sign it, this is his third term anyways. President Lawnchair isn't doing anything of his own design.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
We are doomed by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-28 00:39 · Score: 0

Just another example of how this tyrant has embrace the words of his predesessor who said, "It's just a gawddamn piece of paper".
We are doomed.
So if this backfires .. by nurb432 · 2011-05-28 00:50 · Score: 1

So the idea is that if this backfires as the campaign gets moving, 'hey i really didn't sign it, vote for me'.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Why Couldn't The Vice President Sign by TooLazyToLogon · 2011-05-28 02:46 · Score: 1

During Jerry Brown's first term as California's governor, his lieutenant governor, Mike Curb, would sign bills in his absence. Most memorable was the fact that the republican lieutenant governor would sign bills that the democratic governor would have never signed.
AHA! by fireylord · 2011-05-28 02:48 · Score: 1

And that, right there, is the point!
They want to keep their seats by doing what the people _that_voted_for_them_to_be_their_representatives_in_congress_ wanted?
How very undemocratic!
The economist is wrong then by fireylord · 2011-05-28 02:55 · Score: 1

Because the for President Reagan is President.
It is disrespectful to the person refer to the Person of the President as Mr.. Also where pieces are about that President's time in office it is also very disrespectful of the Office of the President to refer to a former holder of that office without the title that goes with it. Respect the office and the title, if not the person. A little respect costs very little and gives alot.
grumble by Khashishi · 2011-05-28 04:47 · Score: 1

What the hell? There's plenty of avenues for fighting against the PATRIOT act. Why would anyone base an argument around some stupid triviality like how the president signed the paper? That doesn't matter. And everyone can see that it's a stupid argument, no matter if it is correct or not.
1. Re:grumble by zzsmirkzz · 2011-05-28 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Why would anyone base an argument around some stupid triviality like how the president signed the paper? That doesn't matter. And everyone can see that it's a stupid argument, no matter if it is correct or not.
  Don't know many lawyers I take it?
What happens when the Autopen gets pwned by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-28 05:53 · Score: 0

What do we do when a major bill is signed "Huge Jass" by a pwned Autopen?
Not only that by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-28 06:45 · Score: 0

Obama declared war on Libya while out of town
Autoscrewing the constitution. by WaffleMonster · 2011-05-28 07:15 · Score: 1

Why do members of congress have to be present to be sworn in? Why Isn't telepresense (Ala C-SPAN) good enough? What is the difference?
" Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes 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"
It says he shall sign... not a fricking robot.
It would be the ultimate validation of the existance of karma if USG lost a supreme court challenge to the patroit act over this.
Anonymous yep, but not coward Mr. Admin by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-29 14:58 · Score: 0

Sorry for that, but I don't need to be registered to post opinions without being offended, if you guys don't agree so I think you should reconsider your range of visitors here, maybe removing slahdot from Google would be best for starters.
You guys really drop the ball here.