President Obama is not signing HR 3808! The Notarizations Act. Good news!

[Better Believe It]

The White House Blog
Why President Obama is Not Signing H.R. 3808

Posted by Dan Pfeiffer on October 07, 2010 at 01:15 PM EDT

Today, the White House announced that President Obama will not sign H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2
010, and will return the bill to the House of Representatives. The Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010 was designed to remove impediments to interstate commerce. While we share this goal, we believe it is necessary to have further deliberations about the intended and unintended impact of this bill on consumer protections, including those for mortgages, before this bill can be finalized.

Notarizations are important for a large range of documents, including financial documents. As the President has made clear, consumer financial protections are incredibly important, and he has made this one of his top priorities, including signing into law the strongest consumer protections in history in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. That is why we need to think through the intended and unintended consequences of this bill on consumer protections, especially in light of the recent developments with mortgage processors.

The authors of this bill no doubt had the best intentions in mind when trying to remove impediments to interstate commerce. We will work with them and other leaders in Congress to explore the best ways to achieve this goal going forward.

Dan Pfeiffer is White House Communications Director

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/07/why-president-obama-not-signing-hr-3808

[closeupready]

1. Woohoo!

:woohoo:

[jdlh8894]

8. Don't know about "Woohoo"

Let's see here

Democratic House-PASSED


Democratic Senate-PASSED

Democrat President-VETO

Why does this not make sense to me?

[closeupready]

10. woohoo, because the tone is set at the top; he is the leader of the party.

Ideally this reflects real change that we voted for. It's a small step, but it's better than if he'd signed it.

[jdlh8894]

18. Sorry,still don't understand

His party passed this legislation through. Guess what the legislature (the people that we elect) says, don't mean crap.

[closeupready]

22. A leader leads. Therefore, to the extent nominal followers fail to follow,

he can see that the party enforces discipline on wayward members.

I mean, no offense, but this is Political Science 101.

[jdlh8894]

26. No offense taken

Took Poly Sci 101 in 1971. Guess I've not learned anything over the years! NOT!!!

[Deep13]

2. So this is his first veto then?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

9. I don't believe it's a veto.

He's not signing it, and it's being returned to the House for further work.

If I understand it correctly, that is.

[mvd]

11. I believe you are correct

Hi, Peggy! :hi:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

17. Back atcha, my dear mvd!

:hi:

Thanks for the confirmation!

[Deep13]

23. Well, that's how the Constitution describes the veto power.

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."

Art. I, sec. 7.

[Dark]

42. Actually, because Congress is not in session, it will be effectively vetoed. Congress can

take the issue up again, but for all intents and purposes the bill is dead.

[Dark]

41. It's a pocket veto, I believe. That means he doesn't actually have to veto it, it just won't become

law without his signature.

[ellenfl]

3. yippee!!! eom

[mvd]

4. K&R

I've complained about things like compromising on health care by letting the public option go, Obama's civil liberties record, his education policies, the bipartisan tone, etc. But this adds to the naming of Warren as good signs lately. I also think the President is having reservations about Afghanistan. Way to go on this! :applause:

[Luminous Animal]

5. "The authors of this bill no doubt had the best intentions in mind"

Um.... no.

[Bozita]

6. +1

Nice job, Senator Dodd!

[Better Believe It]

7. Sure they did. :)

[Parker CA]

12. Kick and Rec!

[Waiting For Everyman]

13. Yay!!!

Kudos to the President... :applause:

And all here who pushed are SO COOL! :yourock:



This was a good one to win.

[hayu_lol]

16. I would have preferred a veto...

this way, this bill just might edge it's way quietly back into signing position.

[onenote]

28. In one sense a pocket veto is better than a standard veto

If this is in fact a pocket veto, then there can be no attempt to override the veto. If it was treated as a regular veto, it could be overriden. In either instance, however, nothing prevents Congress from revisiting the legislaiton and passing it again in similar or amended form.

[Hannah Bell]

37. i don't see that it's a veto at all.

Obama was sending the bill back to the House of Representatives for further discussion of how it would affect the foreclosure crisis, which has become a political lightning rod amid media reports that banks acted improperly to evict struggling borrowers.

"We believe it is necessary to have further deliberations about the intended and unintended impact of this bill on consumer protections, including those for mortgages, before this bill can be finalized," Pfeiffer

[onenote]

38. of course its a veto

When a bill is passed by both houses of Congress one of two things can happen. It can become law or it can be vetoed. It can become law either by having the president sign it or by having the president not sign it while Congress is still in session. It can be vetoed by the president sending the bill back to the chamber of Congress from which it originated with a written statement of the president's objections to the bill or, if the chamber that originated the bill is not in session, by having the president not sign the bill.

Under the latter form of veto, the bill can't be overriden but the Congress could pass the bill again, or amend it, or abandon the effort. If the bill is vetoed while the relevant chamber is in session, in addition to those three options, Congress could seek to override the veto.

Its not an all or nothing game. Bills are sometimes vetoed because of a fundamental disagreement with everything in the bill and sometimes because of a disagreement with a single thing in the bill. A veto is a veto.

So you may not "see it" as a veto, but its a veto and the effect is the same as any other veto.

[HughMoran]

14. Removes self from floor.

"Obama" and "good news" in the same thread????

[geek tragedy]

15. you better beliieve it! n/t

[JNelson6563]

19. lolz

[HughMoran]

21. hah!

:D

[blondeatlast]

32. *spray* nt

[JNelson6563]

20. So all the hysteria from those who love to be hysterical

was for nothing? damn! foiled again!

Julie

[girl gone mad]

27. Odd conclusion.

Looks like the squeaky wheel got the grease this time.

Do you honestly believe that if people had not raised awareness and made their voices heard against this travesty, we would have gotten the same outcome?

[JNelson6563]

29. I'm sure all the ranting on DU did it!

Woo-hoo! Yay us!

Oy.

[Better Believe It]

24. We’ll have to wait and see the official Memorandum of Disapproval

There’s been a pang of concern over the language of “will not sign” over “will veto” in the statement. The President cannot “pocket-veto,” in other words veto something by not signing it, when Congress is in session. Though you think they’re not, they are in fact having pro forma sessions, because of the silly deal in the Senate to block recess appointments between now and the election. Some have feared this amounts to a pocket signing of the bill.

But there’s other language in this statement that’s important. Pfeiffer says that the White House will “not sign” and “return the bill to the House of Representatives.” That’s crucial. Legislative procedure expert David Waldman sees this as a “belt and suspenders veto,” similar to what Obama did last December.

We’ll have to wait and see the official Memorandum of Disapproval, but it looks from the language that Dan Pfeiffer used in his statement that the same will apply in this case. In addition, I’m pleased by the attention being paid in the statement to the potential effect on mortgages and foreclosure issues.

I think we can say with 99% accuracy that HR 3808 will not become law.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/10/07/obama-not-signing-hr-3808/

[suffragette]

25. Good news

Happy to see Obama do this and to K&R.

Hopefully the next step is the DOJ investigating the notary abuse issues Brunner has sent to them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-brunner/notarize-this-the-brewing_b_747461.html
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/PressReleases/2010/20100930.aspx

[onenote]

30. Have to correct you: The House is not is session and that is what matters

When Congress is in session a bill can be vetoed by returning the bill, unsigned and with a written statement of objections,to the chamber from which the bill originated. If the bill can't be returned to that chamber because that chamber has adjourned, the bill will not become law if it is not signed within ten days of its receipt by the President.

The Senate is still in session, albeit with pro forma sessions each day. That was done as part of a deal on recess appointments (remember, its the Senate, not the House, that has to confirm presidential appointments). THe House is adjourned.

HR 3808 originiated in the House and therefore it can't be returned to the House and a pocket veto is in order. Now, admittedly, the House has only adjourned for a recess, but there is ample precedent that an intrasession recess of more than a few days (and the resolution adjourning the House states that the session will resume in November) is sufficient to make a pocket veto in order.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. Well, Gee. I'm sure all the "I'M DONE WITH THIS PRESIDENT!!!111!!!" folks will be by to acknowledge

that he got one right.

Any minute now...



...

[blondeatlast]

33. traffic is detoured... apparently there's a big house fire nearby.

;)

[Warren DeMontague]

36. I'm sure as soon as they nail down which group are the REAL libertarian poopy-heads

they'll be by to acknowledge the Administration doing something right.

[Uncle Joe]

34. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Better Believe It.

[Hannah Bell]

35. good news, but fairer to say, "not yet"

Obama was sending the bill back to the House of Representatives for further discussion of how it would affect the foreclosure crisis, which has become a political lightning rod amid media reports that banks acted improperly to evict struggling borrowers.

"We believe it is necessary to have further deliberations about the intended and unintended impact of this bill on consumer protections, including those for mortgages, before this bill can be finalized," Pfeiffer

[SlipperySlope]

39. Glad to read a little bit of good news for once.

[Dark]

40. BUT BUT BUT... I thought he was just a corporate whore.

n/t

[Better Believe It]

43. His action had nothing to do with the election. Really. He always sides with working people ..

against Wall Street and corporate America.

Sure he does.

Just look at his record.

Nevermind.

What a firestorm of anger that would have created among millions of working people had President Obama signed this anti-worker bill into law! That would have surely sunk a boatload of Democratic candidates.

So I have to I wonder if the upcoming election had anything to do with his veto.

Boy .... that's a really tough question to answer.