Given the ability of banks to muscle through all sorts of favorable legislation, there was good reason to be concerned about the sudden reappearance of HR 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarization Act. While this measure has been long sought by trial lawyers, many observers were understandibly concerned that this measure might serve to be a “get out of liability free” card for robo signing banks, particularly given that there had been no legal analysis of the measure. And this was far from conspiracy thinking; the Ohio secretary of state took a particularly dim view of the sudden effort to pass this measure.
Obama refused to sign the bill in October, but many were concerned it might rear its head again, and indeed, has returned. Here are the procedural details, hat tip 4ClosureFraud:
The House received a message from the Clerk. Pursuant to the permission granted in Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Clerk transmitted H.R. 3808, the “Interstate Recognition of Notarization Act of 2010,” and a Memorandum of Disapproval thereon received from the White House on October 8, 2010, at 12:55 p.m.
Mr. Scott (VA) asked unanimous consent That, when the House adjourns on Monday, November 15, 2010, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 16, 2010, for Morning-Hour Debate. Agreed to without objection.
Mr. Scott (VA) asked unanimous consent That, when a veto message on H.R. 3808 is laid before the House on the legislative day of today, then after the message is read and the objections of the President are spread at large upon the Journal, further consideration of the veto message and the bill shall be postponed until the legislative day of Wednesday, Nov. 17, 2010; and that on that legislative day, the House shall proceed to the constitutional question of reconsideration and dispose of such question without intervening motion. Agreed to without objection.
The good news is, per a source on the Hill firmly in the anti-bank camp, that this move is strictly procedural, an objection to Obama’s use of the so-called pocket veto rather than an effort to revive the measure. From a Constitutional perspective, a pocket veto is not a legitimate action, but it can’t be overridden by Congress. The House vote is effectively a complaint, tantamount to, “We accept your veto of this bill, but it’s not a pocket veto because those don’t exist.”
FireDogLake provided a similar take as of earlier today; my source did further checking and confirmed that this move is strictly procedural, and not an effort to revive the measure.
It’s nevertheless good to see the quick alerts issued on this front. In the effort to try to rein in stealth efforts to help out the banks, you are bound to get the occasional false positive. But it’s better to err in these cases on the side of excessive vigilance.