Posted on 05/27/2011 8:44:38 AM PDT by Notwithstanding
Prior to 0bama's act yesterday, no US president has used an autopen to sign legislation into law (there is no evidence of this prior to yesterday - likely because noone but a president with no proof he is Constitutionally qualified would be so cavalier about signing a bill into law).
You would think a real journalist would investigate and highlight this fact as incredibly problematic (especially a journalist who formerly hated the Patriot Act when it was Bush's legislation).
All TSA-type actions (that are lawful only by virtue of the Patriot Act) performed in the period between the old law's expiration date and the date he actually signs this extension in person are null and void.
We will all be quite surprised if a marxist or islamist does not use this fact to claim that his rights were violated during that period.
Some smart patriot who refuses a body scan and is groped before 0bama makes it back to correct his gross error by signing this in person should sue.
Otherwise our Constitution is weakened once again by 0bama's disregard for it.
Please place add the news topic to this thread. A few hours after I posted this FR exclusive, Jack Tapper at ABC News ran a piece on the same topic:
Which is at FR here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2726056/posts?page=1
An unconstitutional ineligible President signs a bill into law unconstitutionally. What a shocka!!!
The Hill also has it:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2726044/posts
Luckily for us, a president's legal council is not the first and last word on constitutionality. One assumes Obama's White House will make the same case but it's something that should be adjudicated in a court of law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.