That may be true of some State Governors, but I believe the President not signing a bill is known as a "pocket veto." Oops. Incorrect. See Regolith's following post. Glad I used the cop-out "I believe."
For myself, as long as the electronic sig is secure and he directed an assistant to affix it to the documents, it's legit. I used to send important emails with my full name, and "(signed)" next to my sig.
Nobody ever bellyached about it, and if a notary were to ask if I acknowledged that as my signature, I'd have said yes.
Same kind of problem occured many years ago when real estate contracts began to be faxed back and forth and other electronic "short cuts" began to be taken in business. The law referred to "original signed copies" being given to the buyer or seller. Minor brouhaha about that until the Real Estate Commission, with certain cautious reservations, called acknowledged faxes and "Xeroxed" copies "duplicate originals," and mailed documents were considered to have been "placed in the channels of communication" when placed in the mailbox, hence effective at that point. (This all circa 1970s.)
A manufactured argument, as someone said. Might as well claim your electronically-taken fingerprints are not "fingerprints." Try that in court. (TIC)
But the question begs a discussion of all kinds of e-transmitted documents, images, etc.
"X" (Terry, 230RN, his signature.)
