It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A bill or joint resolution that has been vetoed by the President can become law if two-thirds of the Members voting in the House and the Senate each agree to pass it over the President’s objection. The chambers act sequentially on vetoed measures; the House acts first on House-originated measures (H.R. and H.J. Res.) and the Senate acts first on Senate-originated measures (S. and S.J. Res.). If the first-acting chamber fails to override the veto, the measure dies and the other chamber does not consider it. The House typically considers the question of overriding a presidential veto under the hour rule, with time customarily controlled and allocated by the chair and ranking member of the committee with jurisdiction over the bill. The Senate usually considers the question of overriding a veto under the terms of a unanimous consent agreement.
Voting in the House
To override a veto, two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being present, must agree to repass the bill over the President’s objections. The Constitution requires that the vote be by the “yeas and nays,” which in the modern House means that Members’ votes will be recorded through the electronic voting system. The vote on the veto override is final because, in contrast to votes on most other questions in the House, a motion to reconsider the vote on the question of overriding a veto is not in order.
This is about REQUIRING courts -- both federal and state -- to accept electronic documents that have electronic seals (not a raised, stamped, notary seal that is required when having a document notarized). They want courts to accept a "seal" that is "logically associated" with the electronic record. In plain words, they want to require courts to accept electronic records (MERS, perhaps) that HAVE NOT BEEN NOTARIZED.
Talking points, as I see things:
* This is a backdoor way to make the robo-signing legal.
* This bill would require courts -- both federal and state -- to accept evidence that would ordinarily be objectionable. Congress must amend the Federal Rules of Evidence in order to do this. They cannot, however, because (if I recall correctly) the Supreme Court prescribes new rules and/or rule changes, and then Congress implements them. Further, Federal Rules do not apply to state courts. Congress is attempting to dictate to the states in violation of state sovereignty.
Originally posted by Vitchilo
EDIT : It might not be totally dead. It's back in the judiciary committee...