I support the Patriot Act and believe that it provides reasonable and essential tools to fight terrorism. That said, I question whether the recent bill extending the three non-permanent provisions of the Patriot Act was signed into law in compliance with the Constitution.
Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution states, “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.” (Emphasis added.)
The extension of the non-permanent provisions of the Patriot Act was signed by an autopen and not by President Obama’s hand. In other words, “he” did not sign it. This is the first time in American history that a bill has been signed by an autopen rather than by the president personally. In fact, it is unclear whether the bill was ever actually “presented” to the President. These facts raise a serious question as to whether the Patriot Act has actually been signed into law in a manner that complies with the Constitution.
Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA) has sent a letter to President Obama raising these questions. It will be interesting to see whether President Obama or any of the establishment news media follow up on this issue, and if not, whether there will be a legal challenge questioning whether the extension of these provisions was legally signed into law.
UPDATE: CBS News’ Mark Knoller has indeed raised these very questions, asking whether Sasha could sign her father’s name to a bill. Will any of the other news media follow suit?
