Good vote - terrible sellout
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:03 pm
As always, I could not find this by a search of the forum, so apologies if it's a duplicate. This is not strictly gun-related, so my apologies to those who bristle at such things here, but I believe it reflects future problems with our elected "representatives" in all matters.
HR 3808 was brought back to the House of Representatives (read yesterday, voted today) in an attempt to override an Obama Presidential veto. It is the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010. The bill was to require "each federal and state court to recognize any lawful notarization occurring in or affecting interstate commerce which is made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a state other than the state where the court is located." (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... D&summ2=m&).
What it means:
(I'm trying to be brief in a really complicated mess, and probably not entirely correct; also, it's been a long day. If the real lawyers want to chime in, please feel free.)
For the major impact from this bill, mortgage companies, when they do not have wet-ink mortgage papers properly filed in a state which requires same (and usually within a specific period of time to be valid), would be allowed to have those papers filed at this time in another state which does not have those requirements (yes, there are states in which you can foreclose without the original properly filed mortgage papers!). This would have let off the hook many banks and mortgage companies which have reportedly been foreclosing without the original papers over the past several years (and reportedly continue to do so).
This bill was introduced 10/14/2009, passed by Congress in October 2010, and vetoed by the President 10/8/2010. Yes, he did the right thing! But, it was brought back this week for a veto override vote in the lame duck session.
The wonderful thing is that the override attempt failed. The bad thing is that it was the Democrats who predominantly voted it down, while the Republicans almost all voted FOR it (somewhat the reverse of the original vote)!
The banks are the ones who would have completely benefited from this action if it had been successful.
In my glance at the vote tally, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-573, I saw only one Texas Republican who voted against the override: Ron Paul!
Is this a Texas Republican Caucus sellout?
HR 3808 was brought back to the House of Representatives (read yesterday, voted today) in an attempt to override an Obama Presidential veto. It is the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010. The bill was to require "each federal and state court to recognize any lawful notarization occurring in or affecting interstate commerce which is made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a state other than the state where the court is located." (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... D&summ2=m&).
What it means:
(I'm trying to be brief in a really complicated mess, and probably not entirely correct; also, it's been a long day. If the real lawyers want to chime in, please feel free.)
For the major impact from this bill, mortgage companies, when they do not have wet-ink mortgage papers properly filed in a state which requires same (and usually within a specific period of time to be valid), would be allowed to have those papers filed at this time in another state which does not have those requirements (yes, there are states in which you can foreclose without the original properly filed mortgage papers!). This would have let off the hook many banks and mortgage companies which have reportedly been foreclosing without the original papers over the past several years (and reportedly continue to do so).
This bill was introduced 10/14/2009, passed by Congress in October 2010, and vetoed by the President 10/8/2010. Yes, he did the right thing! But, it was brought back this week for a veto override vote in the lame duck session.
The wonderful thing is that the override attempt failed. The bad thing is that it was the Democrats who predominantly voted it down, while the Republicans almost all voted FOR it (somewhat the reverse of the original vote)!
The banks are the ones who would have completely benefited from this action if it had been successful.
In my glance at the vote tally, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-573, I saw only one Texas Republican who voted against the override: Ron Paul!
Is this a Texas Republican Caucus sellout?
