Despite the careful and tedious process of rulemaking, there is always going to be someone who is unhappy with the regulation in its entirety. Accordingly, the door is always open for reform; a chance to improve the regulation by altering it, or by somehow correcting perceived errors. In essence, reform will change the condition of the current administrative law. Can you reflect on the number of times that this has happened recently? Is it easier to reform that which is flawed, or is it better to just start from the beginning?

Select one of the following situations:

1. You are an appointed member of the White House Special Council staff.
2. You are an international analyst (outside of the United States).

To complete the Assignment:

• In the role you selected, draft a 3- to 4-page immigration reform, economic trade, environmental, or human trafficking proposal regarding a rule that the president or nation is seeking to change.
• Your proposal should include the Bluebook citation of the rule the president or the nation is seeking to reform, as well as a persuasive argument for the need for reform of the rule.
• Support your position using a minimum of 4 scholarly resources.

NOTE: Make sure to include a reference list.

READINGS

• Harrington, C. B., & Carter, L. H. (2015). Administrative law & politics: Cases and comments (5^th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
  • Appendix E, “The Constitution of the United States of America”
• Harvard Law Review Association, et al. (Eds.). (2015). The Bluebook: A uniform system of citation(20^th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Author.
  • Rule 10
• Ingber, R. (2016). International law constraints as executive power. Harvard International Law Journal, 57(1), 50–110.
• Kim, K. (2014). The separation of powers principle: Is it a lynchpin or pushpin for the voyage of American public? International Journal of Advanced Research, 2(8), 887–895. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kiyoung_Kim5/publication/268642533_The_Separation_of_Powers_Principle_Is_it_a_Lynchpin_or_Pushpin_for_the_Voyage_of_American_Public/links/5472e0160cf2d67fc035cf77.pdf
• Medsker, R. S., & McDorman, T. F. (2016). Maintaining institutional power and constitutional principles: A rhetorical analysis of United States v. Nixon. Speaker & Gavel, 41(1), 1–19. Retrieved from http://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=speaker-gavel
• United States House of Representatives v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell, et al. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/HouseLitigation.pdf
• Yoo, J. (2015). Judicial supremacy has its limits. Texas Review of Law & Politics, 20(1), 2–27.

WEBSITE

The White House. (n.d.). Retrieved June 27, 2016, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/

Note: Use this resource to locate presidential directives.

Optional Resources

• Belco, M. H. (2013). Power or persuasion: Unilateral orders and the legislative process. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association 2013 annual meeting, Chicago, IL.
• Bradley, C. A., & Morrison, T. W. (2013). Presidential power, historical practice, and legal constraint. Columbia Law Review , 113(4), 1097–1161.
• Khan, Z. A., & Sabir, M. (2013). President vs. Congress in U.S. foreign policy: Cooperation or confrontation. Journal of Political Studies, 20(1), 143–158.
• Silva, R. L. (2014). Reckoning RLUIPA’s substantial burden provision—A sliding scale approach. John Marshall Law Journal, 8, 127.