Kachi wrote:
I wasn't aware of that. Then it shouldn't matter much if he used the auto-signer or not. If it was so urgent that it couldn't wait ten days to become de facto law, then why not just use it?
I'm not really up to speed on the issue, but it may have been that allowing the bill to sit long enough for this to happen may have resulted in lapses in services or policy provisioned by the bill itself, hence the urgency to sign.
The question here isn't really about the use of an autopen specifically, but more "What is the appropriate way for the PotUS to sign a bill when he's physically unable to do so within the time frame deemed necessary?"
Personally, in a case like this, I think it's pretty cut and dry that the auto-signing was a well documented extension of his authority and not at all questionable. The slippery slope argument is legitimate however.