THERE WILL BE A VOTE TO OVERRIDE OR UPHOLD THE PRESIDENTS VETO WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 17, 2010

Here we go again… It's Ba-ack! HR 3808

http://4closurefraud.org/2010/11/16/action-alert-its-back-h-r-3808-interstate-recognition-of-notarization-act-of-2010/

Call Congress!

"In many deliberative bodies (e.g. the United States Congress), questions may be decided by voice vote, but the voice vote does not allow one to determine at a later date which members voted for and against the motion. Upon the demand of any member, a division may be held; the members supporting and opposing the motion stand successively and are counted. However, even in the rarely used division procedure, the names of the individuals voting on each side are not officially recorded. A recorded vote, under the Constitution, may be obtained upon the demand of one-fifth of the members present. Other methods may be provided by Rules of the Houses."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_vote

So how come not even 20% of the members of congress, or 40% of the Democrats were willing to demand a roll cal vote so that we could determine who the rats were?

See this post for links, including the one to the video mentioned above.

This is like the bill of the living dead. They are going to keep bringing it back until it passes.

It reminds me of the legislation to loosen rules on paying overtime to workers. I lost count of how many times we defeated it but they kept bringing it back until they could pass it.

Wouldn't it be nice if they showed that much tenacity over passing a bill which doesn't screw the working stiffs?

I'd love to see this as an OP.

very -- interesting, if so.

is because no one recognized the problems it might cause as drafted. This is hardly a new or unique phenomenon in the legislative process. The good news is that it was caught before it became law, which is not always the case. But as for those who see this as part of some hidden legislative agenda, I think you can relax, especially if you know the legislation's history. A very early and somewhat different notarizations bill was first introduced in 1997 or 1998, was referred to committee, but like most bills, never got anywhere. Flash forward to 2005 (before the foreclosure crisis). An updated notarizations bill that specifically addresses electronic notarizations, is introduced. I have a feeling that not too many people here have actually read the bill. Its just a few paragraphs long and on its face appears to be pretty innocuous and, indeed, probably appears to be beneficial by reducing uncertainty as to whether a document notarized in one state will be accepted in another state. When it was introduced in 2005, it was described by John Conyers -- not exactly a blue dog -- as a "common sense" measure to reconcile conflicting state laws." And while the bill was passed by voice vote in the House and unanmious consent in the Senate, that is not a particularly unusual practice. Indeed, at least the bill was presented as a stand alone measure and not buried as two pages in the midst of a 1000 page appropriations bill or some other measure. The bill that was passed by this Congress was introduced in October 2009 and taken to the House floor in April; the bill was "managed" on the House floor by Tammy Baldwin, who (like Conyers) isn't my idea of a right wing hack. She, and the repub manager, Rep. Smith,described the bill on the floor of the House before it was put to a vote. As noted, it was a voice vote, which is actually a pretty common way of moving pieces of legislation that are considered noncontroversial.

The problem of course was that while the bill looked innocuous and was introduced with good intentions, it was, in light of later revelations about foreclosure abuse, a classic case of legislation with unintended consequences.

Was it a fuck up? Yes. Was it a particularly unusual fuck up? Not really, except for the fact that such fuck ups usually do become law and this one didn't.

Disclosure: while I had nothing to do with this bill (and didn't even know of its existence until after it was enacted) I have spent several decades working as a legislative counsel, helping draft and analyze legislation and following its process through the Congress. I've suggested language that seemed completely reasonable only to have it pointed out that it would cause some unintended problem. I've both identified examples of such screw ups in reviewing and analyzing bills and I've missed examples. It happens. Not everything is a big stinking conspiracy. This was a five year old bill that Congress thought that they could get done before they left town and in their rush, they simply screwed up by not understanding its ramifications. It passed the House in April and I don't recall a word being said by anyone about it.

And while it apparently is going to be put to an override vote, that's simply because the House is defending its turf -- the House doesn't think the President can pocket a veto when the House is merely on recess, so even though President Obama (and a number of Presidents before him) disagree, the House will treat the President's pocket veto as if its a traditional veto and may well have a vote on it. But it won't be overriden because Pelosi wouldn't bring it to a vote if there was a chance that might happen. And even if she did, it would still need to go through the override process in the Senate and Leahy has publicly stated he doesn't support the bill as drafted and since he's chair of the Judiciary COmmittee in the Senate, the bill isn't going anywhere.

weekend and Jennifer Brunner, Sec'y of State from Ohio, who gave us all the 'heads up' on HR3808 was also in attendance and spoke.

I asked her about HR3808. I said, 'Don't you think it's odd that this bill just FLEW through Congress?' She sounded as if Congress was stupid and really didn't understand the significance. I said, 'Really? It seems very strange to me.'

But then I trust no one. But come on....Congress is made up of lawyers who know about notaries.

I understand that some states DO ACCEPT electronic notaries....OH is not one of them. I don't know which ones are or aren't.

All I gotta say is The Banksters are in Congress and they want this bill passed. Dollars are flying into the pockets of campaign funds.

I should have told Jennifer not to get into any small planes. Banksters are evil. Morgan Chase employs over 15,000 in Columbus, OH....lots of back office, credit card, mortgage and customer service. Jamie Dimon is the CEO and a real arrogant crook.

If this veto is doesn't hold, everyone will know that The Banksters rule this country.

ARgh.