He’s done it before. The autopen is his signature & why would the President of the United States put his name on something he doesn’t agree with?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/us/politics/28sign.html?_r=0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/obama-autopen-signs-fiscal-cliff-bill_n_2405116.html

The president has used an autopen to sign legislation three times during his term.  This columnist writes that other presidents have used something similar to an autopen, with technology being the difference between Obama and his predecessor; however, it seems that only President Obama has received criticism.  As technology continues to progress, where will we draw the line between convenience and plagiarism?  Is the autopen a legitimate form of the president’s signature?  How does this apply to not only signatures, but entire pieces of work such as books and music, which are even more commonly available online as time passes?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/02/168477773/how-will-president-obama-sign-the-fiscal-cliff-bill

A person’s signature to a document represents that he or she has read and agreed to the terms of the document. If an autopen signs a document, the person does not necessarily have control of the document to which he or she is agreeing. If the terms of a document are changed without that person’s knowledge and consent, is that person still responsible for the terms provided on the document? If yes, is that fair? If no, does the autopen reduce the significance of a person’s signature?