Staff Reports
In recent days, there’s been quite a buzz surrounding the legitimacy of certain laws and whether they were actually signed with proper presidential authority. This discussion brings to light some rather unsettling questions about former President Joe Biden’s tenure. It seems the political arena is now rife with speculation about whether Biden knowingly signed bills into law or if it was all left to some mechanical contraption. Who knew that the magical autopen, which should be reserved for signing Christmas cards or other ceremonial matters, could tip the scales of American legislation?
It’s safe to say that this raises a red flag. The Founding Fathers of this great nation understood the importance of having a strict set of rules in place to ensure the integrity of the system. They designed the process so that a president must personally sign bills into law. Unfortunately, it seems that amidst the hustle and bustle of governing, some may have thought it prudent to bypass rules that have existed longer than some buildings on Capitol Hill.
Across the political spectrum, reasonable individuals are questioning if it’s too much to ask a president to put pen to paper personally. If the commander in chief can’t manage that, how can we trust that the administration fully understands the contents of these laws, let alone their implications? Perhaps they had reason to rush or some other fantastic excuse, but let’s face it, if you can’t find the time to sign crucial legislation, it might be time to reassess your priorities. It’s a bit like trying to bake a cake without bothering to turn on the oven.
Getting back to basic governance should not be something that requires a congressional act, but apparently we’re asking for the moon. Given reports that Biden issued thousands of commutations towards the end of his administration without a clear narrative on their legitimacy, this only fuels skepticism. Are we supposed to just take their word for it? Hardly. It’s becoming increasingly apparent to the discerning observer that a thorough examination of what happened in those days is not just necessary, but overdue.
Finally, this whole debacle brings us to the fundamental question of competency. At some point, it seems obvious to everyone except perhaps the decision-makers that if a president can’t carry out the simple duty of signing bills, their capability to lead should be called into question. It makes one wonder who was calling the shots, if indeed the president was not fully engaged or aware. Instead of letting this slide, there might be a case for ensuring future leaders meet the criteria the Constitution demands. An engaged, present president is not just ceremonial—it’s essential for democracy.
