The President today officially vetoed and returned the Notary bill to the House!!!!

[dixiegrrrrl]

Here it is, straight from the WH.gov site, the President's Memo:

Presidential Memorandum--H.R. 3808

It is necessary to have further deliberations about the possible unintended impact of H.R. 3808, the "Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010," on consumer protections, including those for mortgages, before the bill can be finalized. Accordingly, I am withholding my approval of this bill. (The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929)).

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

To leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed, in addition to withholding my signature, I am returning H.R. 3808 to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, along with this Memorandum of Disapproval.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 8, 2010.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/10/08/presidential-memorandum-hr-3808

[spanone]

1. K&R

[DJ13]

2. Memorandum of Disapproval

[madrchsod]

3. it`s not all that hard to become a notary or counterfeit a stamp.

[joeybee12]

48. It's gotten harder over the years...there are SOME requirements now...

all you had to do in many cases in the past is just send in our fee and they sent you the stuff.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. Surprised? You bet I am. n/t

[yodermon]

5. I'm kinda surprised this wasn't attached to some other legislation

if they really wanted to sneak it through.
This was sort of a "low-hanging fruit" veto.

[Panaconda]

39. That's what will happen

n/t

[Kolesar]

6. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner started an email campaign when she figured this out

She actually emailed her supporters and posted it on Facebook to generate contacts to the White House.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. That was a very smart move on her part.

[dixiegrrrrl]

9. Hooray..I did not know that.

Glad to hear it.

[inna]

7. kr, and awesome.

"To leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed, in addition to withholding my signature, I am returning H.R. 3808 to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, along with this Memorandum of Disapproval.

BARACK OBAMA"


Right ON. Looks like President actually heard us the People on this one.

[dixiegrrrrl]

10. He may have heard the rumbling of the lawsuits and decided to step aside.

The bill was written in the spring, but not submitted till end of Sept.
BAAAAAD timing for the bill sponsors, given how fast this mortgage bond fraud is developing.

[onenote]

61. The bill was first written five years ago and has been passed by the House three times.

Identically worded legislation was first introduced in the 109th Congress in April 2005 (HR 1458). It was the subject of a House judiciary subcommittee hearing and mark up and ultimately passed by the House on a voice vote in May 2006, but was never acted on by the Senate. In April 2007 it was reintroduced in 110th Congress(HR 1979) and, in July 2007, after being referred to two House committees, it was approved by the House by a voice vote after a motion by John Conyers. Again, the Senate never took up the bill (or on an identical companion bill introduced in the Senate in September 2007).

Finally, it introduced in the House for the third time in the 111th Congress in October 2009, referred to two different committees, and approved by the full House by voice vote after a motion by Tammy Baldwin in April 2010. It then went over to the Senate where it was discharged by the Judiciary Committee and approved by unanimous consent on September 27.

This was not a big conspiracy. It was a bill whose consequences, particularly in light of the mortgage foreclosure crisis that arose years after it was first introduced, weren't appreciated and understood by those involved. Was that a screw up? Yes. But its not the first or last time that members of congress and their staff will not recognize the unintended consequences of legislation they are considering. What makes this case unusual, fortunately, is that the consequences were recognized in time to prevent the bill from becoming law.

[glitch]

20. Most excellent. nt

[depakid]

11. Things that make you go hmmm...

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

Stay tuned....

[JTFrog]

12. /facepalm

Seriously, is there nothing you will give our President credit for?

:eyes:

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. It's pathological at this point

Sad, since this was a strong and interesting poster before the deep end was, well, gone off.

[HughMoran]

15. /infinite facepalm

[dionysus]

23. .

:spray:

[dionysus]

22. cling tightly to that hope, never let it go...

:rofl:

[awoke_in_2003]

37. I am as hard on the president as anyone...

but I realize that that line was thrown in as a courtesy. It wouldn't do to call the legislators idiots.

[arikara]

49. Or crooks...

even if they are.

[awoke_in_2003]

50. and they all are. nt

[MineralMan]

13. Thanks, Mr. President!

Good job!

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joe black]

16. It's not over.

Don't pretend that it is.

[The Uncola]

17. Thank you Mr President!

This is precisely what I had hoped he would do, DESPITE the grief I was given by certain elements here, for daring to suggest that he do exactly this. VETO and leave zero doubts as to where he stands in the matter. I'm not usually one to say, "I told you so," but in this case:

I TOLD YOU SO!

:fistbump:

[TexasObserver]

18. The state of the stalled foreclosures gives the president his strongest hand.

Without passing anything, foreclosures have been limited all over the country. There is no reason to rescue these lending giants from the mess they created. It was bad enough in 2008 when they were saved, instead of being forced into liquidation. Giving them a "get out of foreclosure mess free" card on top of that is undeserved.

The current status forces lenders to deal with debtors on a much more equitable basis. I call that one for our side.

[customerserviceguy]

32. All it does is prolong the pain

We will still have people who cannot afford the payments on mortgages that are for more dollars than the houses are worth, who are not going to be either willing or able to make up back payments and get back on track with their underwater financing. Further, as long as the foreclosure process is dragged out, that will drag out the period of time that foreclosure properties will be on the market, and they keep the downward spiral of housing prices going.

That has the effect of making people even less willing to stick with an underwater mortgage, since no matter how long you pay on it, you still have negative equity until the loan is in its last few years. The entire economic recovery is at risk, only when housing prices firm up do we see any true uptick in the economic situation.

Yes, it might be fun for you to watch people living in houses for free for another year, but it doesn't do anything for the recovery. We've only got about two more years for a solid recovery to occur, or we'll be hearing "Hail to the Chief" being played to President Palin.

[TexasObserver]

33. That's not the case at all.

Lenders are faced with a situation where they need to deal with borrowers. The only way to easily deal with foreclosure situations is to reach a deal with the borrowers. That means concessions by the lenders. They either have to cut a new deal for a new loan at a lower principal and lower interest rate, of they'll have to eat even more losses. The only way a lender can stop their losses and either get the property refinanced or sold is with the borrower's cooperation.

This could mean borrowers are able to walk their loan with no deficiency, if that's what they negotiate. It could mean cash to the borrowers to leave the home now and agree to a consensual foreclosure.

The longer the borrower can stay in the house without paying the mortgage, the more it hurts the lender, and that forces the lender to deal. Either the lender will agree to let the borrower walk with no deficiency liability, or they'll give the borrower cash incentives to leave by agreement. Either way, it strengthens the borrower's hand and weakens the lender's hand.

Your conclusions are not sound, unless you're representing lenders in this discussion. You're especially wrong about what's good for the recovery. Forcing lenders to deal more fairly with borrowers is good for the recovery. The people who need the most help are the ones whose homes are going into foreclosure.

[customerserviceguy]

35. So, what does 'deal with borrowers' mean?

Is it a lender saying, "Well, we're only going to be able to sell this dog of a house for $250K, and it's going to cost us $25K in sales costs, and $10K in foreclosure costs, when adding in $5-10K in lost interest during the period it takes to actually foreclose, we should just offer to reduce the mortgage balance to $205-210K from the $350K that the borrowers originally agreed to pay?"

What if those borrowers really bought the house for $100K fifteen or twenty years ago, and got the $350K refinance just to piddle away the money on crap? Would that change your opinion on what the lender 'should' do? Does it really make any difference if the borrowers paid $350-375K for the house, after watching "Flip This House" a few too many times, thinking they could sell the place to the next sucker for $500K?

Will the lender need to do that again when the housing market slips even further?

Do these numbers sound big to you? Well, the two bedroom condo next to the one that my lady and I live in sold for $420K about two years ago. In some places, that's the size of the problem here.

I don't represent the lenders, I work for a utility company. In that job, I deal with real estate agents who are still getting foreclosure properties, and I know that the economy won't even begin to recover until I no longer get those kinds of calls. As long as there is an inventory of unsold homes going through the foreclosure process, there will be homes that lenders are willing to unload quick and cheap, and that hurts those folks who didn't get in over their heads.

This is not like Vietnam, or Pandora, where if the locals put up enough resistance, the 'invaders' will just go away. The people who stupidly built up the housing bubble (and I include realtwhores, bankers and speculators in this) are the ones who collapsed the economy, and the rest of us who manage to live within our means are suffering because of it.

It's all a matter of time as to when the foreclosures happen, many if not most borrowers have already walked away from the homes, they know that they'll never be able to keep them unless some sort of crazy reduction in principal takes place, and that's just not gonna happen.

Get the foreclosures over and done with, sold to the next people who can get an opportunity to own from them, and let's get the economy back on track again.

[TexasObserver]

36. Just that. It means the lender has to cut a deal with the borrower.

It means the lender can't get on with it until they make a deal with the borrower for the borrower to willingly deed back the property to the lender. It's called a friendly repo. Or, the lender can make loan modifications to keep the borrower in the home. As I said, it could be a deal to either refinance, or reduce the principal, or reduce the interest rate, or provide incentives. The borrower has a stronger hand and the lender has to deal with him.

As for your questions, the answers are -

Yes
Doesn't matter
No
No
You're assuming something that probably won't happen, but if it does, that's how it goes
No



Your concern is for the lender, and it shouldn't be. The only time to be concerned for the lender is when they're paying you.

[xiamiam]

42. i like you..

[customerserviceguy]

57. I don't know if you're dreaming or merely hallucinating

but none of what you consider ideal is going to happen. Period.

My concern is not for the lender, the lender (or the investors who bought the mortgage) are already going to lose a bundle, and that's what happens when you invest in a market that's in a bubble status. My concern is for those who are hoping to stay employed, or who wish to get employed, as long as there are still foreclosure properties out there, we will not have touched bottom.

And we don't get a recovery until we do hit rock bottom. If I were a Repuke, I would cheer the President's decision, it will surely guarantee that the economy will suck two years from now, and any damn fool who gets the GOP nomination, no matter how idiotic they are, will win the Presidency. With a Rethuglican Congress fully in place, they will be able to undo any progress President Obama has made in the last couple of years.

[TexasObserver]

58. The role of Democrats is to protect consumers, not their exploiters.

You don't seem to understand anything about the problem of foreclosures, the way in which to deal with the problem of misbehaving lenders, or the role of DEMOCRATS in watching out for the consumer, not the lender.

I don't hold out any hope that you'll get it, and we should dispense with the notion you're going to.

[CanonRay]

60. Sometimes there has to be a line between right and wrong

even if it "prolongs the pain". Finally, somebody might be held accountable for something.

[bvar22]

19. Thank You President Obama, and Kudos!!!

NOW,
lets see some Frog Marches.
Those who willfully commit Fraud & Perjury belong in jail!

[hvn_nbr_2]

21. "The authors of this bill ... had the best intentions"

Political reality is that he has to say that. But the simple truth is almost certainly that the authors of the bill had no intentions other than to serve the greed of their corporate masters and owners.

[flyarm]

26. x 1 million! you have that right! 100% eom

[the redcoat]

47. My thoughts exactly

But honestly, I don't care. This is a case of political diplomacy in words, but while taking effective correct action. I don't blame him for including that sentence in his response.

He could have said "I think this is a really kickass bill" for all I care. He acted in the best interest of the people and that trumps the careful wording.

[The Uncola]

52. Absolutely! Those ...

.. bastards don't pass this kind of crap by accident. This is just another try to butt kiss to banksters and cover their crimes against the middle class.

[Arkana]

24. So he ACTIVELY vetoed, not just pocket vetoed.

Good work, Mr. President.

[quakerboy]

31. More accurately

he actively pocket vetoed.

[onenote]

62. more precisely, he pocket vetoed with a "protective return"

because the Congress historically takes the position that a president can't pocket veto a bill when the House is in an intrasession recess rather than in a "sine die" post-session adjournment. The executive branch, dating back several administrations, takes a different view. So, following the same approach taken by bushes i and ii and by Clinton, President Obama said he was exercising his pocket veto power but also, as a protective measure, returning the bill. If (and this isn't going to happen), an effort was made by the Congress to override the veto, there would be a fight between the two branches because the executive branch would argue that the bill can't be overriden because it was pocket vetoed; the Congress would argue that it could be overriden because it was the subject of a "return" (or "regular") veto. As stated, Congress isn't going to try to override this veto. What they will do is go back and try to rewrite the bill so it does some of the things it was trying to do without opening the door for abuse.

[Zax2me]

25. Rec. & K

[autorank]

27. k*r This is still a pocket veto, which is good

Here's the case cited in the memorandum issued by the White House

http://supreme.justia.com/us/279/655/case.html

POCKET VETO CASE, 279 U. S. 655 (1929)

Full Text of Case
U.S. Supreme Court
Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929)
The Pocket Veto Case*
No. 565
Argued March 11, 1929
Decided May 27, 1929
279 U.S. 655
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS

If it were the more formal version of the veto, Congress would have a shot at voting to override, which might happen
since the bill was passed with a majority or unanimously depending on the chamber.

The pocket veto, used when Congress is adjourned, means it just dies.

This will come back since the entire real estate market, the value of that market, is on the line.

[Diane R]

28. So those Democrats who are wondering, THIS is why we elected Obama!

[Hannah Bell]

29. good.

[DireStrike]

30. Hah! Never has a sternly worded letter felt so good.

Of course, it helps that it had a VETO backing it up!

[thelordofhell]

34. The Power Of The President Prevails

Did the last President even know what a pocket veto was?

[onenote]

63. the last president did exactly the same thing with at least one bill

claimed to be pocket vetoing the bill but using a protective return to cover all of the bases. Bush I and Clinton also did the same thing.

[awoke_in_2003]

38. k&r, nt

[Terra Alta]

40. This is great

Obama is making me proud I voted for him. :)

[NorthCarolina]

41. Is the Senate roll call vote for H.R. 3808 published anywhere on the web?

I have not been able to nail down a single name for any Senator that voted in favor of this legislation. If someone could provide a link, I would appreciate it.

[Chan790]

44. My understanding is it passed unanimously in the Senate.

Every Senator thus voted for it...or abstained.

[rpannier]

45. This is why you can't find a roll call vote

Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.

[NorthCarolina]

46. No record of the vote was kept? What the heck is up with that?

Something doesn't smell right in this.

[Chan790]

51. It happens all the time.

It's called a unanimous consent motion.

Someone moves after the vote for "unanimous consent" and as long as nobody objects, everybody's vote is changed to "Yea" unless they request formally to "Abstain". The original vote is stricken and replaced; only an abridged tally is placed into the Congressional Record (meaning no record is kept as to who Abstained versus voting Yea either. Typically the people who voted Nay originally request abstentions.) It's a rule-device used to conceal the formal vote record so that positions of voting may not be used against anybody...it's frequently used on controversial legislation. Once so moved, they almost always pass...it's considered an act of courtesy under Senate rules.

The fact that it was used here makes it plain that the Senate knew this was going to be controversial...there's no foothold to claim they didn't realize the effect of this bill. Unfortunately, it likely means there are enough votes in the Senate to override the formal veto as these motions are only typically made in votes that were overwhelming.

[NorthCarolina]

53. So, in essence

the only reason this wasn't signed into law then is likely because word of it's passing somehow got out, and subsequent public outrage made it a political fireball. Caught with their pants down.

[Chan790]

54. Yeah, that's about the shape of it. n/t

[NorthCarolina]

55. Figures

guess I'll withhold my "Thanks" to Obama then since he likely would have signed it had the cat not gotten out of the bag. Since you seem pretty knowledgeable about this event, do you have any idea who it was that blew the cover off this legislation passing?

[Chan790]

56. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.

As stated by other's upthread. I don't really know a lot about the specifics of this bill though.

It's not as easy to get things like this past the people as people are led to believe, there are watchdog groups that do nothing but read legislation to catch the low-flying crap and call attention to it. Part of the reason legislation is so long is actually to confound those groups, it's hard to read a 3000 page bill. The hopes are they won't read them or can't do it very well.

I studied Political Theory in college in DC and many of my classmates went to work on the Hill post-college. I just know the nuances of the process because of them.

[dixiegrrrrl]

59. Link to specifics of the bill

this is a great site for reading bills, or you can read summaries of bills.
It tells who introduced the bill, the co-sponsors, the tracking of the bill, the voting on the bill,
anything you want to know.
I have e-mail alerts set up for Introduced bills and for bills sent to the President.

Note this. about the bill:

Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative’s position was not kept.
Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3808

[onenote]

65. This bill, however, wasn't 3000 pages or buried in another bill

It was a page long. It was introduced and passed by the House three times in five years. It simply wasn't viewed as controversial. Certainly, over those five years, there is no evidence of any consumer group grousing about the bill. It was only when the mortgage crisis occurred and word got out about foreclosure abuse, that the bill's potential for harming consumers was recognized, which fortunately led to its being vetoed -- a veto that many of those who supported the bill for years acknowledge was needed so the bill could be fixed.

[onenote]

64. No.

Unanimous consent is occasionally used for controversial bills as you suggest, but more often its used for bills that are deemed noncontroversial. This bill first was introduced in 2005 and passed the House by a voice vote in 2006. It was reintroduced in the House in 2007 and passed by a voice again. Each time, however, the Senate failed to get around to acting on the bill.

The bill predates the mortgage crisis by years. It was introduced, as the President's message indicates, with good intentions, but turned out to have the potential for seriously harmful unintended consequences. That happens a lot. In this case, the good news is that the problems in the bill were caught before it became law.