I had the good fortune of attending a meeting of the OMB Alumni Association. The customary protocol is to have a presentation by former employees interspersed with the opportunity to exchange experiences shared while working within OMB.
Mr. / Ms.
I have spent years developing an International Digital Library dedicated to the Presidential review of regulations which is read throughout the world.
I have also served as a senior policy advisor in five US Presidential Administrations and my work has been subject to comments rendered by a number of writers including those at the NY Times:
By Binyamin Appelbaum (New York Times)
Request to the Council of Economic Advisers Rouse
A Discussion Held at the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis (Video)
June 26, 2014 Reuters Allow the Wonks to Have a Say on OMB Review of Regulations
March 25, 2021 A Response to the Presidential Executive Order on Modernizing Centralized Regulatory Review
March 17, 2021 An In-Process Recommendation to the Biden Administration
A Request to the Society for Benefit Cost Analysis to Restore an Informative Link on the OIRA Review Process
OIRA Directives
A Proposed Interactive Management Forum
Recommended Action
- Establish periodic meetings of ACUS members, Senior Fellows and Agency Representatives focused on providing responses to questions asked by federal members when they solicit advice on an issue which is not addressed in total or in part by existing ACUS publications.
The proliferation of “technological advances” in the management of the administrative state is often hailed in an overly positive manner. Far be it for a practitioner not to support the widespread use of, for example, smartphones during the conduct of a regulatory proceeding and to oppose, in a number of instances, the proliferation of Zoom calls in lieu of face-to-face meetings. Consider the unrestricted use of smartphones during administrative hearings, devices that result in a constant interruption of thoughtful endeavors and the limitless use of Zoom calls which allow proponents of a particular position to escape any eye-to-eye contact with the opposition and prevents an assessment of the sense of the audience.
The Academy has performed an excellent job on publicizing the shortcomings inherent in the Major Questions Doctrine; the web is replete with scholarly articles on its shortcomings. However the record is short on solutions to the problem. To date the solution provided by the Academy is based upon applying the Congressional Review Act to the MQD. The problem is that this solution requires the enactment of two major pieces of legislation: (1) enactment of legislation expanding the jurisdiction of the CRA, and (2) the passage of legislation applying the revised CRA to the MQD.
I spent five decades developing and implementing a process which allows the President to police the activities of the regulators; I have just released a strategy which is an easy and effective process for policing the activities of the Supreme Court.
Please see the Common Law Initiative at https://www.thecre.com/forum8/?p=7806 Presently the Common Law Initiative is being reviewed by policy officials in the Congress and Executive Branch agencies. I applaud the work of the Academy to explore the many dimensions of the Major Questions Doctrine with a focus on pedagogical concerns but I am writing you to ask the academy consider an expanded role in the resolution of this very significant policy issue.
Previously I focused on establishing the Presidential Review (OIRA) of agency actions in the White House Office of Management and Budget; I am now focusing on Congressional Review of judicial actions.
Center for Regulatory Effectiveness
email: tozzi@thecre.com
[The following was downloaded from this page]
12/13/2022
An Effective and Easy Way to Challenge the Major Questions Doctrine
Permanent Record of Public & Non-Public Submissions: CRE Symposia on the Common Law Initiative
Ikoel Jacob