According to Churchill, Roosevelt was very reluctant to locate the 1943 “Big Three” conference in Tehran because of the great difficulty that would be presented if there was a need to fly required signatures to/from Washington. (Roosevelt acquiesced when Stalin insisted that he was far too essential to Soviet operations to travel farther than Tehran.)
As an aside, the Texas A&M Student Body President vetoes bills sent to him from the student senate via a very large red “VETO” stamp that covers most of the page.
Or, as I like to refer to it: “The Big Red F*** You Veto Stamp”
I am totally amazed that this thread didn’t get into a discussion of what would happen if we elected a president born without arms.
To make an analogy, the British monarch has a seal that seems to be more or less used as a legal signature, and probably qualifies as a legal signature.
I was reading a while back that it was common in one country for large numbers of people to use an ink stamp as their legal signature. There was supposedly a ceremony of sorts where kids would get their first stamp on their birthday when they reached legal adulthood age, since as adults they could now sign (er, stamp) documents without getting a parent or guardian to cosign. I don’t think the stamp was issued by the government, but it was just a tradition that the parents would arrange to help the kid get the stamp as a birthday present and it was the intent behind using the stamp that truly made a legal signature.
I keep a copy of the works of Phillip Pullman at home and support the right to armed bears.
You can’t hug a child with nuclear arms.
Safire also wrote a novel, Full Disclosure, about a President who is blinded after taking office. He has bills read to him or summarized by aides, and a Federal judge assigned to the White House when it comes time to witness that he has signed or vetoed bills.
He would still have the right to bear arms… but he’d better ask the bear first.
You’ll see in the fourth paragraph that it’s no longer needed to approve Acts of Parliament. Her Majesty these days may affix her “sign manual”: Royal sign-manual - Wikipedia
[nitpick]
That’s wrong on almost every possible level.
The granting of the royal assent in the Westminster Parliament has never been done with any of the seals or by the sign manual. Rather it has always been done verbally. And even when the monarch did turn up in person, the words were actually spoken by the Clerk of the Parliaments. The Clerk is also the only person who signs anything as he then endorses the bill to record that he has been pronounced the assent.
It is however true that the granting of royal assent now indirectly involves the Great Seal, in that, because she does not attend in person, the Queen instead sends Lords Commissioners to deputise for her and she does so by letters patent under the Great Seal.
Moreover, the granting of the royal assent for the Scottish Parliament and for the devolved Assemblies is done by letters patent under the relevant Great Seal.
[/nitpick]
1614? Pfft. I just filed a brief citing three statutes from the time of King Edward III, still in force. 
In Japan, China, and Korea (and probably other East Asian countries), it used to be very common for people to sign documents with stamps bearing their names (I think it’s still done, but I have no idea how common it is).
Similarly, I have noticed that certain people in the US military who have to sign a large number of documents (unit commanders, for instance), will have a stamp with their signature block* on it, which they might proceed to draw some kind of squiggle over with a pen. For that matter, I’ve seen the actual signing delegated to junior officers (the “Commander’s Exec”, they use the commander’s stamp along with their stamp) when the boss is too busy to keep up with the more mundane paperwork.
- A Signature Block is basically all the stuff you’d put with your name at the bottom of an official letter or an email, for example:
Raguleader
Commander In Chief
Spaghetti Sauce Armada
555-1138
You can hug ten million children at once with nuclear arms.
For differing values of “hug.”