How do you feel about the use of autopens by US presidents?

It should be widely allowed (17%) – "This is a non-issue. The issue is whether or not the president authorized the document and then delegated the signature. Otherwise, this is just a smoke screen and unnecessary discussion used by Trump to divert attention."

• "We have bigger problems than the methods by which presidents sign documents. The actual issue is who was making the decisions; we have a lot of historical evidence of inner cadres conspiring, rightly or wrongly, to keep people unaware of health or mental issues faced by presidents. Focus your energy on managing that, if you choose, and forget about the specific tool you think is most useful for it."

It’s OK for less important stuff, but not more important decisions (54%) – "We sent a wedding invitation to the sitting president at the time of our wedding and received a wonderful note back. I suspect the president did not actually sign that note, it was either digital or autopen. I think there are things like that where the use of an autopen is warranted. It's consistent and can be sent off on behalf of POTUS without him having to sit and sign meaningless papers for hours on end. The fact that the ligitimacy of any of Biden's signatures are being called into question with the recent medical information that has been released is absolutely cause for concern, though. Autopen should not be used for anything important, life-altering, regarding national security, etc. POTUS should be aware of every decision being made and signing those things by hand when needed."

• "So, who pushes the button on the autopen? If the President is too incapacitated, unelected staff could be instituting change detrimental to us all. The President should personally sign his name. Seems ridiculous that this conversation exists."

"Look, we all know that Biden wasn't aware of what was going on towards the end of his presidency, right? That's not a question. I don't think the autopen itself is the issue, it's the fact that the president wasn't really the president by that point. If an autopen is used, it still needs to be something sanctioned by a fully functioning president."

• "The autopen should be reserved for routine or nonessential documents to preserve the integrity of official signatures. Using it on important matters can undermine accountability, blur lines of authority, and weaken public trust in leadership decisions."

"It is a total abuse of power and should be outlawed for serious matters. The fact that he did not control the use is a serious breach in trust among other issues as to who actually directed the use while it appears Bernal and Jill directed it."

It should be banned (20%) – "Just as Congress should read and comphrehend each piece of legislation prior to a vote, the President should also have read the legislation, or at least a thorough summary of the legislation, both the good and the bad, before afixing his/her signature to the legislation. Without these steps, there is no transparency in government."

• "It seems reasonable to expect the POTUS who took the time to consider and authorize official actions to spend an additional second or two to actually SIGN the damn things (assuming, of course, that those things worth signing don't number in the thousands daily)."

Unsure/other (9%) – "The question isn't so much about whether or not an autopen can do the signing as it is about proving that a president actually authorized the decision. Traditionally a signature has been the way of proving that, but why do we use a signature at all? Why not just an X to mark a name or a wax seal like ancient rulers? The technology and manner isn't the issue, it's the clear line of proof that the president actually authorized it that's really in debate here. For that reason, I don't have any issue at ALL with the autopen - what I want to really know is if there's going to continue to be issues proving the president made that decision. Just outlawing autopen usage doesn't really change the core issue here."