The following was provided by the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform Report (MHARR) to MHProNews on 1.21.2020. The MHARR report will be followed by additional information, plus MHProNews analysis and commentary.
JANUARY 21, 2021
TO: MHARR MANUFACTURERS
MHARR STATE AFFILIATES
MHARR TECHNICAL REVIEW GROUP (TRG)
FROM: MHARR
RE: BIDEN ADMINISTRATION REGULATORY EXECUTIVE ORDERS
The Biden Administration, as expected, has issued a flurry of executive orders (EOs) and related directives in its first hours, including several pertaining to federal regulatory matters that will have both direct and indirect impacts on the regulation of HUD Code manufactured housing. While MHARR is in the process of developing a comprehensive analysis of these actions and their implications for both the manufactured housing industry and American consumers of affordable housing, the following is a list of the most significant executive actions undertaken thus far by the Biden Administration and the most immediate effects that they will likely have in the short term on the federally regulated manufactured housing industry:
- Executive Order on Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning Federal Regulation
This Executive Order immediately revokes Trump Administration EOs which sought to reduce and/or eliminate burdensome regulations on American businesses. These include Executive Order 13771 of January 30, 2017 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) and Executive Order 13777 of February 24, 2017 (“Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda”), which together formed the express basis for HUD’s so-called “top-to-bottom” review of existing HUD manufactured housing standards and regulations. Regulatory reform proposals submitted to HUD pursuant to that “review” were analyzed, considered and, in significant part, recommended for HUD adoption by the statutory Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) throughout 2019, but were never finalized or even published as proposed rules by HUD. Given the slow-down of these reforms within HUD during 2020, it is now highly unlikely that any significant program reforms will ensue, particularly insofar as the Biden EO instructs the “Office of Management and Budget and the heads of agencies [to] promptly take steps to rescind any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies, or portions thereof, implementing or enforcing” either EO 13771 or 13777, while it simultaneously abolishes “any personnel positions, committees, task forces, or other entities established pursuant to … Executive Orders [13771 and 13777] … including the regulatory reform officer positions and regulatory reform task forces established by sections 2 and 3 of Executive Order 13777….”
In addition, the Biden EO rescinds Trump Administration EO 13891 of October 9, 2019 (“Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents”) and EO 13892 of October 9, 2019 (“Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication”), which sought to curb the misuse and abuse of agency “guidance” documents to establish new regulatory burdens in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and, in the case of manufactured housing, section 604 of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000. As previously documented by MHARR, both Trump Administration “guidance” EOs were similarly slowed down within HUD, with the result that the only HUD manufactured housing program “actions” rescinded pursuant to EO 13891 and 13892 through the end of the Trump Administration were 13 meaningless editions of the Office of Manufactured Housing Programs’ (OMHP) newsletter.
- Executive Memorandum on Modernizing Regulatory Review
This executive action instructs the Director of OMB, in “consultation” with federal agency heads to, “as soon as practicable,” begin “a process with the goal of producing a set of recommendations for improving and modernizing regulatory review.” Those recommendations, according to the Biden directive, “should provide concrete suggestions on how the regulatory review process can promote public health and safety, economic growth, social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity, and the interests of future generations.” The directive further states that these “recommendations should also include proposals that would ensure that regulatory review serves as a tool to affirmatively promote regulations that advance these values.” (Emphasis added). It should be noted that this directive is prospective only. Thus, absent any further steps by the new administration, such review will not be applied to existing rules, only to proposed new regulations subject to review by OMB. Nor does this directive alter the purposes or substantive provisions of federal manufactured housing law.
Insofar as mainstream HUD Code manufactured housing – as the nation’s premiere source of affordable homeownership for all Americans, and particularly lower and moderate-income families – affirmatively promotes each of the above-stated objectives of this directive, this new directive could be cited as a basis for ongoing MHARR efforts to preserve, promote defend and maintain the inherent affordability of HUD Code homes with the new Administration. Further, the modern indoor manufacturing technology employed by the industry for the production of today’s manufactured homes (i.e., indoor, controlled construction techniques which limit pollution and waste), fully complies with the ideals of sound environmental stewardship. That said, however, the amorphous terminology and concepts referenced in the directive have the potential to be abused if not properly developed, stated, and applied by OMB. Therefore, MHARR will continue to closely monitor developments relating to this directive and will seek opportunities to provide relevant, factual and accurate input concerning its implementation for the benefit of the entire industry and its consumers.
- Executive Memorandum on Regulatory Freeze Pending Review
This memorandum to agency heads from the White House Chief of Staff, directs them to pause any pending regulatory actions until they are reviewed and approved by a Biden Administration appointee. In relevant part the memorandum, similar to a directive issued by President Trump upon taking office, instructs federal agencies to: “propose or issue no rule in any manner — including by sending a rule to the Office of the Federal Register (the “OFR”) — until a department or agency head appointed or designated by the President after noon on January 20, 2021, reviews and approves the rule.” As defined by the memorandum, covered “rules” include a wide array of both regulatory and pseudo-regulatory actions, including “guidance” documents and advance notices of proposed rulemaking. Consequently, this pause will impact activity on HUD’s December 12, 2020 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning manufactured housing program payments to the states and possibly could delay slightly the implementation of HUD’s so-called “third set” of manufactured housing standards revisions which were recently published in the Federal Register and are slated to go into effect on March 15, 2021. Beyond these matters, the pause directive could also potentially affect other pending actions by HUD or other agencies concerning manufactured housing that have not yet been published in the Federal Register. MHARR will closely monitor developments affecting this pause and related matters, and will act accordingly.
We will continue to keep you apprised with factual and accurate information as these matters continue to evolve.
cc: Other Interested HUD Code Industry Manufacturers, Retailers, Communities and MH State Associations
###
Note their memo stressed that “We [MHARR] will continue to keep you apprised with factual and accurate information as these matters continue to evolve.”
MHProNews has noted in several recent reports that our reports may not reflect the views of others – including sponsors – in our industry. Their organization and ours are distinctive and independent. When we agree, which is routinely the case, it is a glorious thing that is based upon mutual but independently held convictions based upon evidence as we respectively see it. Indeed, that is akin to the argument that Tim Williams, from 21st Mortgage Corp, and MHI’s prior President & CEO made. When our views and an association’s agree, that is relevant.
By contrast, when our views and that of a trade group differ, that too obviously is relevant.
Additional Information, Plus MHProNews Analysis and Commentary.
Are the Biden Regime EOs valid? Will red state AGs, or others challenge them, as Democratic AGs challenged President Trump EOs? Or are there other options possible?
MHProNews reported just days ago, one of the final executive orders by President Donald J. Trump was poised to benefit manufactured housing, other professions, and through those American citizens too.
As the report linked below noted, prior to MHARR’s report, several of the Biden regime’s EOs had clear arguably and negative impacts on our industry, and the economy in general.
Because regulatory impacts take time to be felt, some will be noticed almost immediately, such as the potentially illicit Biden regime Keystone Pipeline decision.
CBS San Francisco said on 1.22.2021 that, “Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told senators Friday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would deliver the article of impeachment of President Trump to the Senate on Monday.”
It is a given that among the goals for impeachment are to bar another possible run by President Trump in 2024, but also to pursue him in other ways legally too. But is there possibly more to it?
The left-of-center New York Times said on 1.16.2021 that “Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Friday that House impeachment managers were preparing to prosecute President Trump in the Senate…” Note that phrasing.
“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has refused to say when that [the formal transmission of the single article of impeachment from the House to the Senate] will happen,” said the Epoch Times.
They said that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters in Washington earlier Thursday that Pelosi will decide on when to transmit.
“Leader McConnell and I are trying to come up with a bipartisan agreement to conduct a trial, but make no mistake about it, there will be a trial. There will be a vote up or down on whether to convict the president. I believe he should be convicted. We’ll have to wait till she sends the articles over to figure out how to do all that,” the Epoch Times reported Schumer saying.
“Impeachment, said Madison, was to be used to reach a bad officer sheltered by the President and to remove him “even against the will of the President; so that the declaration in the Constitution was intended as a supplementary security for the good behavior of the public officers.”844 per Cornell University Law.
On that same page, Cornell explains why an impeachment of the late President Richard M. Nixon.
“The Nixon Impeachment Proceedings
For the first time in more than a hundred years,883 Congress moved to impeach the President of the United States, a move forestalled only by the resignation of President Nixon on August 9, 1974.884 Three articles of impeachment were approved by the House Judiciary Committee, charging obstruction of the investigation of the “Watergate” burglary inquiry, misuse of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political purposes, and refusal to comply with the Judiciary Committee’s subpoenas.885 Following President Nixon’s resignation, the House adopted a resolution to “accept” the House Judiciary Committee’s report recommending impeachment,886 but there was no vote adopting the articles and thereby impeaching the former President, and consequently there was no Senate trial.”
There “was no vote adopting the articles and thereby impeaching the former President…” That is legally significant.
Per Senate.gov on the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, section 3 says in part as follows. Note that the Senate impeachment rules linked by Forbes seem to imply that only a sitting president can be impeached.
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
The power to impeach is the power of removal from office. As the Congressional website on the power to impeach says it, there are other forms of “essentially noting displeasure with the official’s actions short of the sanction of impeachment and removal.10 ”
Per the Cornell University Law School website, the following.
“839 Impeachment is the subject of several other provisions of the Constitution. Article I, § 2, cl. 5, gives to the House of Representatives “the sole power of impeachment.” Article I, § 3, cl. 6, gives to the Senate “the sole power to try all impeachments,” requires that Senators be under oath or affirmation when sitting for that purpose, stipulates that the Chief Justice of the United States is to preside when the President of the United States is tried, and provides for conviction on the vote of two-thirds of the members present. Article I, § 3, cl. 7, limits the judgment after impeachment to removal from office and disqualification from future federal office holding, but it allows criminal trial following conviction upon impeachment. Article II, § 2, cl. 1, deprives the President of the power to grant pardons or reprieves in cases of impeachment. Article III,§ 2, cl. 3, excepts impeachment cases from the jury trial requirement. Although the word “impeachment” is sometimes used to refer to the process by which any member of the House may “impeach” an officer of the United States under a question of constitutional privilege (see 3 HINDS ’ PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES §§ 2398 (impeachment of President John Tyler by a member) and 2469 (impeachment of Judge John Swayne by a member) (1907), the word as used in Article II, § 4 refers to impeachment by vote of the House, the consequence of which is that the Senate may then try the impeached officer.”
Now, let’s return to what the Senate website says, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried…” Notice that there is no provision to try a former president.
This is potentially significant. It begs several questions, perhaps the two most important being the following.
- If the Senate takes up the article of impeachment from the House, there is a tacit implication that President Donald J. Trump is still the lawful president.
- If President Trump is still the lawful president, then Joe Biden is ipso facto not the lawful president.
The fact that Democrats, with some Establishment Republicans working with them, is pushing an option that either makes no constitutional sense, OR it implies that POTUS Trump is still president, and Joe Biden-Kamala Harris are illegitimate interlopers.
That hypothesis is mildly supported by Senator Schumer’s remark reported by CBS SF, above. So, yes, while ‘impeachment’ – licit or purported – includes the aim of barring future runs or opens the door to other legal pursuits against the 45th president, it may have a subtler component.
Building On That Outline
There is an argument to be made, as has been forged on the Masthead report linked here, that could be teased like this.
- If President Trump was the duly elected president in the November 3, 2020 election, then by implication that means that “President-Select” Joe Biden* was not ‘inaugurated’ in the normative sense.
- Rather, in that scenario, Biden was ‘installed.’
- Quite apart from MHProNews, as one example further below will reflect, there are numerous voices in media, the punditry, plus tens of millions of voters who believe something similar.
- Perhaps half of the country believes that Biden is an “illegitimate” president.
- This widespread phenomenon may explain why Biden’s oligarch backers and their related interests/allies in media, Silicon Valley, big business, deep state officials, and in elected office are trying to shut down any thought that challenges the narrative that Biden is ‘the 46th’ president vs. being a fraud installed via an elaborate ruse that many have dubbed as a type of coup.
“And so the crime is complete, the Fraud in Chief Biden has been sworn into office.
It was fortunate for Biden that there were thousands of troops at the capitol for his swearing in ceremony. If they had not been there it would have been a starkly empty sight. Similar to his campaign appearances, few people showed up. That’s because China Joe is not popular with Americans regardless of party affiliation. Sleepy Joe’s campaign trail mostly took place in his own basement. He knew the election would be rigged in his favor, so he didn’t have to expend an inordinate amount of energy on winning the hearts of voters….
—Ben Garrison
Tina’s Take:
I was angry and frustrated like all patriot to see a traitor crowned as faux President. The 2020 election was stolen, we all know that for a fact. Trump was cheated, not defeated and WE were cheated out of our vote. Clueless Joe is NOT my President, he is a legitimate Presidential puppet of China. They think they “won”?
REMEMBER BIDEN AND THE REST OF THE TRAITORS LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE AT A FUNERAL…
…
“THE CRIME HAS BEEN COMPLETED”
No matter what happens, we will never give up. Hold the line. This is just the beginning..why would Trump KEEP saying “The Best is YET to Come”
Do your own research. AND keep the faith!”
That was emailed to MHProNews, but is available on their website along with additional gear and supportive items offered at this link here.
What is hypothetically possible may or may not be what is on the minds of President Trump and/or his legal advisors. But what is know is that there is reported discussion of President Trump’s legal team making the case that the election was stole as part of the defense. If so, that might – possibly – point to a strategy to use that as a leverage to reclaim the White House. It would be a long shot, but that option appears to be there, based upon the evidence.
MHProNews contacted some well-known Trump attorneys on these possibilities and options. They did have not yet provided a comment. Rush Limbaugh raised that point today. Treat Biden as an illegitimate president. Stick with it, much like Democrats have done for years.
With The Biden Regime Rolling On…
Our profession and the nation are seeing the out-the-gate impacts on polices that already contradict pledges like not ending fracking in states such a Pennsylvania. Promising jobs, they are instead destroying jobs.
MHProNews will continue to monitor, report, and provide analysis as warranted. See the related reports linked above and before to learn more.
That’s a wrap on this installment of the runaway number one source for authentic “News through the lens of manufactured homes and factory-built housing” © where “We Provide, You Decide.” © ## (Affordable housing, manufactured homes, reports, fact-checks, analysis, and commentary. Third-party images or content are provided under fair use guidelines for media.) (See Related Reports, further below. Text/image boxes often are hot-linked to other reports that can be access by clicking on them.)
By L.A. “Tony” Kovach – for MHProNews.com.
Tony earned a journalism scholarship and earned numerous awards in history and in manufactured housing.
For example, he earned the prestigious Lottinville Award in history from the University of Oklahoma, where he studied history and business management. He’s a managing member and co-founder of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and MHLivingNews.com.
This article reflects the LLC’s and/or the writer’s position, and may or may not reflect the views of sponsors or supporters.
Connect on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/latonykovach
Related References:
The text/image boxes below are linked to other reports, which can be accessed by clicking on them.
