Is There A More Innocent Explanation For The Revival Of HR3808?

Tyler Durden's picture

Over the past day, some have gotten concerned that the reappearance of HR3808 on the floor of the House may be another shadow attempt to override the president's veto which could, if passed, ameliorate the fraudclosure situation (yet which if Diana Olick's report about an imminent settlement is correct, may be moot as is). Courtesy of a highly ranked political advisor, we present an alternative view, stating that HR3808 is not about enforcing banker interests, but more about delineating the separation of powers between the president and congress. Either way, the bill's attempted passage can be watched live here.

A lot of people are worried about HR 3808 being on the floor of the House today?  Why?  Your government is here to help.  Trust us.

Ok, on to the story, as I understand it.

I called around and basically what people tell me is that this is not an attempt to override the veto, it is a pissing match between Congress and the President.  The President engaged in what’s known as a ‘pocket veto’, which Constitutionally speaking doesn’t really exist, but sort of does.  And a pocket veto, in its not-a-wave-not-a-particle state, can’t be overridden by Congress.  The House doesn’t like that. So the House is voting today and basically saying ‘we accept your veto of this bill, but it’s not a pocket veto because those don’t exist’.

Here’s more: http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/11/17/hr3808s-resurrection-seems-more-about-separation-of-powers/

That’s how I understand it, and I could be wrong because this stuff is confusing.  I’ll try to get a statement from someone official.  But just remember, trust us.