President Obama has vetoed all of two bills since he took office, the lowest number of vetoes since President Garfield.
One of the bills he vetoed was H.R.3808 - Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010, which had the purpose of :
Requires 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.
Requires such a notarization to: (1) use a seal of office as symbol of the notary public’s authority; or (2) have the seal information, in the case of an electronic record, securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant.
Why, Obama, why? why would you be so worried about a bill that required courts to accept notarised documents from other states that you would veto it?
Why do you hate notaries?
friedo
November 18, 2014, 5:57am
2
Here is a not very enlightening statement from Dan Pfeiffer on the subject.
Notarizations are important for a large range of documents, including financial documents. As the President has made clear, consumer financial protections are incredibly important, and he has made this one of his top priorities, including signing into law the strongest consumer protections in history in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. That is why 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.
My guess is they were concerned about out-of-state notaries being used to commit fraud, since a bank in one place might not be familiar with notarization procedures or licensure requirements in another place.
Here is the text of the veto letter from the president. It says much the same thing.
Because then people will realize his Kenyan birth certificate isn’t notarized, of course.
No, not really. Here’s a statement from the White House about why he vetoed it:
If you don’t want to click the link, it’s a comment from his Communications Director saying that, while the President agrees with the general goal of the bill, he’s concerned about “the intended and unintended consequences of this bill on consumer protections, especially in light of the recent developments with mortgage processors.”
Here is the entire text of the bill:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010”.
SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN FEDERAL COURTS.
Each Federal court shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than the State where the Federal court is located if -
(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce; and
SEC. 3. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN STATE COURTS.
Each court that operates under the jurisdiction of a State shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than the State where the court is located if -
(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce; and
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Electronic record. - The term “electronic record” has the meaning given that term in section 106 of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. 7006).
I have to admit I don’t see any obvious direct connection to consumer protection.
I’m not in a mood to get into the debate on this bill, but here are some articles that cover the issues:
MikeS
November 18, 2014, 1:01pm
6
Around the same time, there was a great deal of concern that banks had been playing fast and loose with paperwork requirements. In particular,
In some cases, documents have been signed by employees who say they have not verified crucial information like amounts owed by borrowers. Other problems involve questionable legal notarization of documents, in which, for example, the notarizations predate the actual preparation of documents — suggesting that signatures were never actually reviewed by a notary.
Other problems occurred when notarizations took place so far from where the documents were signed that it was highly unlikely that the notaries witnessed the signings, as the law requires.
On still other important documents, a single official’s name is signed in such radically different ways that some appear to be forgeries. Additional problems have emerged when multiple banks have all argued that they have the right to foreclose on the same property, a result of a murky trail of documentation and ownership.
I can see how, in such an environment, one might not be inclined to relax the legal requirements for notaries.
And finding a notary isn’t that hard anyway. Surely a multinational corporation that suddenly finds the need to buy some Kansas farmland would be able to find a notary somewhere in downtown Topeka before planting season.
Chronos
November 18, 2014, 5:28pm
8
This sounds reminiscent to me of the efforts to allow insurance companies to “sell insurance across state lines”. What that means is allowing them to pick the state with the lowest level of regulation and consumer protection, and subject the entire country to that low level. I’m not sure what abuses notaries would be able to commit in this way, but I’m not confident that there aren’t any.
