On the other hand, I also assume that it is highly unlikely that anyone else can sign a bill into law without the President’s consent and remain undiscovered. So why jump through the autopen hoop? Why can he not do so verbally and have a clerk put his opinion on paper? Especially since it’s quite common for the Congress to vote using voice votes.

Still, this is the least scandalous aspect of the whole sordid affair. I assume that he could not have acted otherwise. The choice would have otherwise been between being attacked for not caring enough about the nation’s security to sign the bill immediately, or being attacked for wasting tax-payer money on trans-Atlantic flights/couriers in this time of deficits. Don’t get worked up by the autopen, vote for better representatives instead.

Who, pray tell, is so concerned about affixing a particular signature to a particular bunch of unConstitutionalily as to use a mechanical pseudo-siganture?

I grieve for a former republic.

The entire surface you see there opens up to reveal a large C-shaped disc, a few feet in diameter. The discs have a wavy pattern on the inner and outer edges, and a raised ridge in the middle.

When you use the machine, it rotates the C-shape under the area where the pen is. Two arms translate the amplitude of the waves on each edge of the disc into X-Y pen movement, and the center ridge controls when the pen is raised and lowered.

But I won’t be holding my breath for this because no one has heard from the Republicans in any substantial way since they took the House.

The whole concept of having to sign things is so antiquated to me.

I think it keeps a certain bit of tradition, and it seems it would make a President just a bit more aware by signing his John Hancock to a law rather than clicking a button. It’s a bit harder to forge a signature than hack the autopen. I do also agree with the Senator, considering the John Ashcroft scenario of cabinet members trying to coerce him while drugged up. But perhaps it doesn’t make a difference.

For some reason, by contrast I’m a huge advocate of internet-based public voting.

HUH? Nice projection there!

Maybe you missed this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/26/patriot-act-extension-white-house_n_867608.html

“With the national security law set to expire at midnight on Thursday, the Obama administration has applied intense pressure to congressional lawmakers to finalize an extension without any lapse.”

but you’re most likely assuming Obama believes the same way you do.

“When you’re at the top you have to let your administration do things that are pretty repulsive to your own personal values.”

I disagree, especially if you at the top. you get to call the shots not those under you.

Signing this bill proves that Obama is NOT a terrorists loving, socialist Kenyan who hates America. It proves he’s a center right conservative. . . who hates America.

But conservatives have to attack him for something. They approve of the bill, so they have to attack. . . the method of signing it.

Tom Graves is insane.

Did anyone really drink enough faerie kool-aid to believe that the Patriot Act wouldn’t be renewed under any Prezident?

To reiterate, I am no fan of the Patriot Act, but I understand why those that support it pressed for a method that allowed the bill to be signed before midnight. They did it to avoid causing the NSA to break the law.

But I think it is the artificiality of the deadline and the plaintive keening of Congress that is the most unsettling. The deadline was no surprise. The bill could have been written and signed days ago. Weeks ago. Months ago. Years ago.

But the bill stinks. So they waited until the last possible moment as an excuse to evade public debate.

They wailed like children who played games until bed and then plead exhaustion when faced with unfinished homework.

It’s not the physical presence of the president’s hand that we miss, it’s the semblance of representation we miss from our representatives.