Public Participation

For decades, CRE has had three actions on its “wish” list:

(1) To write a history of OIRA’s centralized regulatory review, including that of its predecessors, and have it published in the Administrative Law Review

(2) To write a history of the concept of a regulatory budget emphasizing its foundations in welfare economics and having it published in the Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis.

(3) To be interviewed by the National Archives regarding the history of centralized regulatory review

The aforementioned actions were accomplished because of the foresight of Susan Dudley(#1), Michael Uhlmann and Tom Kniesner (#2) and the Richard Nixon Foundation (#3), they are as follows:

A number of existing and former CRE personnel are entering their fortieth year of consulting and are in the process of exiting to their initial places of employment. In doing so, they are encouraging their new constituencies, particularly those in academia, to take this opportunity to advance their interests in their particular vocation.

Consequently feel free to utilize this space to comment on a wide range of professional interests, including the CRE Public Policy Projects.

Observers

The Birth of a Legal Doctrine in the Administrative State f

A Public Comment

Public Comments ff

A Log on the First Forum

Editor’s Note:  The Editor chose academia.edu as the mechanism for conducting this “symposium” on the Common Law Initiative because it is composed primarily of legal scholars outside the US.  The US legal academy while not in opposition to the Initiative most certainly has difficulty in supporting it since it places a potential governor on actions of  SCOTUS, the mainstay of administrative law curricula in the US.

OMB, through its Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,  is vested with the responsibility to review regulations before they are disseminated as a final rule. During its more than forty years of existence it has done an excellent job and is the pinnacle of “neutral competence”.

However, OMB is located within the Executive Office of the President and often its review is “assisted” by personnel less visible than the career officials of OMB(OIRA). A possible case in point is the recent handling of proposed rule dealing with Over- the- Counter Hearing Aids authored by the FDA.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW

OIRA’s Formative Years:  The Historical Record of Centralized Regulatory Review Preceding OIRA’s Founding

Jim Tozzi

2011

This publication traces the development of one of the most controversial mechanisms for managing the administrative state in the United States, the White House Office of Management and Budget review of regulations. The article begins with the design of the program during the Johnson Administration, its partial implementation during the Nixon and Ford Administrations, its integration with related government programs during the Carter Administration and its government-wide implementation in the Reagan Administration. The author was the ranking career civil servant in charge of the implementation of the program during these five Presidential Administrations.

From: Jim Tozzi
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 8:19 AM
To: haynes.brown@nbcuni.com
Subject: Reaction of the Legal Community to the Common Law Initiative

Mr. Brown I offer the following in response to your recent article.

I was instrumental in establishing the regulatory review office, OIRA, in the  White House Office of Management and Budget. I have prepared the following in response to questions raised about the Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade.

 What is the Reaction of the Legal Community (Academy) to the Common Law Initiative?

Notwithstanding the SCOTUS action on Roe v. Wade  support for the Common Law Initiative, which argues for the Congressional review of a select number of judicial decisions performed pursuant to a regime articulated by the Administrative Conference of the US, has been nearly non-existent from the legal community and somewhat expected given the following quotation from a member  of the Academy:

The French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville described his observations of democracy in America, he observed that the United States had rejected monarchy but embraced aristocracy.

The reaction of the Academy to the Common Law Initiative, which argues for the Congressional review of a select number of judicial decisions performed pursuant to a regime articulated by the Administrative Conference of the US, has been nearly non-existent.

CRE believes the list of possibilities for the absence of the Academy from the debate include the following which were compiled from casual conversations with the affected communities:

(1) The Congress is continually criticized for over-delegating authorities to federal agencies so it is difficult to oppose Congressional review of judge-made law.

See this page.

Public Comments (1)

Public Comments (2)