Register for E-mail alerts. Comment on articles. Sign up today, it's easy.
Close

Obama vetoes bill on foreclosure documents

'Unintended consequences' cited in surprise move

Social Networks
facebookFacebook
twitterTwitter

Even though the measure passed Congress without a single dissenting vote, President Obama this week spotted potentially nefarious side effects in an arcane bill to rewrite rules on notarized documents, issuing only the second veto of his presidency Thursday.

The move took lawmakers on Capitol Hill by surprise.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Robert B. Aderholt, an Alabama Republican, said those who have raised objections are "misunderstanding" what the bill would have done, and some Republicans are arguing that Mr. Obama's veto -- technically a "pocket veto" in which he simply refuses to sign the measure -- may not even be legal under the standards Democrats applied to President George W. Bush in 2007.

"This is a bill that would help people, and I am disappointed that it was vetoed," Mr. Aderholt said.

The legislation — a mere 334 words long — would have required states to recognize documents notarized in other states. Right now, backers said, some states reject documents from other states for reasons as mundane as the type of seal used by a notary. Some states require the seal to be in ink, while others require it to be embossed.

But Mr. Obama, seizing on recent reports that banks submitted fraudulent documents to push through home foreclosures, said Congress needs to be more cautious about changing notarization rules.

Some banks have acknowledged that employees had falsely attested they had reviewed the documents.

"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," Dan Pfeiffer, the White House's communications director, wrote in a note explaining the decision.

He said administration officials do not question the motives of lawmakers who approved the bill, and he said the White House will "explore the best ways to achieve this goal going forward."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., who had supported the bill for years and allowed it to pass his committee, did an about-face Thursday and said he was convinced by Mr. Obama's objections.

Story Continues →

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Comments

Prof_Dr_G says:

16 hours, 5 minutes ago

Mark as offensive

How could something like this happen? Do they not even talk to each other? We already know that they don't read the documents they vote on, but it appears that they don't even talk! They are dysfunctional idiots!

tinman1967 says:

22 hours, 11 minutes ago

Mark as offensive

Obama....best friend a deadbeat ever had.

schreibermg says:

23 hours, 29 minutes ago

Mark as offensive

Didn't anyone in Congress or the Senate read this bill? Who is writing this stuff? Can you believe over 500 people read this and did not see the lurking danger? Is there danger or is politics at play?

View all comment(s) on this article.

Post a comment

Title

Not Registered Yet?

Comment on articles. Receive e-mail newsletters and alerts. Sign up today.

Happening Now

Please click for more

Most Read

    Independent voices from the TWT Communities

    Making Change

    People getting involved in helping others and making a difference.

    Baseball's Labyrinth

    A statistically slanted view of baseball, brought to you by a disciple of the Bill James movement.

    Riffs

    Find up-to-date information on the D.C. and Baltimore live music scenes and read interviews with artists and reviews of the latest releases and concerts.