Mystere: Pardons cannot be signed by Auto Pen. Pardons fall under CRIMINAL Law, and any documents signed for CRIMINAL Law purposes such as pardons, warrants, etc, must be HAND signed. If it isn't, it's null and void. March 19, 2025 at 8:15 AM.
Copilot: The claim that criminal law documents such as pardons or warrants "must be hand-signed" is not legally accurate in the context of presidential pardons. There is no constitutional or statutory requirement that a pardon be hand-signed by the president. Courts have upheld the validity of pardons as long as they are issued by the president with deliberate intent. The specific method of signature—whether handwritten or via an autopen—is irrelevant as long as the president authorizes it.
To address the broader claim: while certain documents like court orders or warrants issued by judges in the criminal justice system might have stricter requirements, presidential pardons fall under executive authority, not judicial process. This distinction places pardons outside the scope of criminal procedure rules that might apply to court documents.
In other words, the "hand-signed" loophole your acquaintance is suggesting doesn't hold water legally. Let me know if you'd like to explore further arguments or evidence to counter their belief!
Presidential pardons aren't governed by criminal law procedures. They fall under the executive powers granted by the Constitution in Article II, Section 2, which allows the president to issue pardons for federal offenses. This power is broad and does not require adherence to specific criminal law standards, such as a requirement for hand signatures.
The primary legal requirement is that the pardon reflects the deliberate intent of the president, regardless of the signing method. Whether it's handwritten, signed by autopen, or even verbally authorized (though it's typically documented for clarity), the pardon remains valid as long as it originates from the president’s authority.
Copilot: The claim that criminal law documents such as pardons or warrants "must be hand-signed" is not legally accurate in the context of presidential pardons. There is no constitutional or statutory requirement that a pardon be hand-signed by the president. Courts have upheld the validity of pardons as long as they are issued by the president with deliberate intent. The specific method of signature—whether handwritten or via an autopen—is irrelevant as long as the president authorizes it.
To address the broader claim: while certain documents like court orders or warrants issued by judges in the criminal justice system might have stricter requirements, presidential pardons fall under executive authority, not judicial process. This distinction places pardons outside the scope of criminal procedure rules that might apply to court documents.
In other words, the "hand-signed" loophole your acquaintance is suggesting doesn't hold water legally. Let me know if you'd like to explore further arguments or evidence to counter their belief!
Presidential pardons aren't governed by criminal law procedures. They fall under the executive powers granted by the Constitution in Article II, Section 2, which allows the president to issue pardons for federal offenses. This power is broad and does not require adherence to specific criminal law standards, such as a requirement for hand signatures.
The primary legal requirement is that the pardon reflects the deliberate intent of the president, regardless of the signing method. Whether it's handwritten, signed by autopen, or even verbally authorized (though it's typically documented for clarity), the pardon remains valid as long as it originates from the president’s authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment