Replies

Since the bill originated in the house, it doesn't matter that the senate is in session, the bill would be returned to the house. From the constitution:

If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated,
...
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Given that both houses essentially approved of this unanimously, I don't see how a veto matters. It just puts a hold on some foreclosures where all the paperwork was in order, but signed out of state. Which is what I think Obama wants, to hold off his voters from getting foreclosed on until after election.

Although obviously this wasn't much of an issue for the democrats, who were happy to pass this, OR the conservative republicans in the house and senate, none of whom raised any objections.

Since the bill originated in the house, it doesn't matter that the senate is in session, the bill would be returned to the house.

I didn't realize that. Did Obama actually send it back to the House?

Given that both houses essentially approved of this unanimously, I don't see how a veto matters.

I've been wondering if that's what this is all about: since it was passed on a voice vote with no objections in the House and unanimous consent in the Senate, then Obama is afraid that a regular veto would be overridden.

When Bush tried this in 2007, Pelosi said that they would treat it as a veto that could be overridden. But the House ultimately passed a nearly identical bill that addresses Bush's objections.