No, as it's both impractical and bad public policy. But note that in the Constitution Drafting Project, the conservative, libertarian, and progressive teams agreed to an amendment that would permit Congress to create legislative vetoes. constitutioncenter.org/media/files/...

Congress can already do that with a REINS-type mechanism. Why reinvent the wheel?

I wouldn't necessarily object to individual REINS-like mechanisms for particular statutes, but IMO congressional silence is too cheap to let the regulatory state be controlled by it. Congress should have more options.

Various action-forcing mechanisms can be used so that mere "silence" is not a veto. (And in my work on REINS I explain why this need not be a burden on the legislative calendar either.) Formalistic rules need not constrain creative and responsive management of principal-agent relationship.

I will look at your work on this, but I still think one would wish to eliminate the need for elaborate workarounds if one could. (Obviously a big "if".)

Would any of the complained of Trump actions - tariffs, impoundment, national emergencies, etc - even be subject to the REINS act? AFAIK, one of them are final agency rules in the ordinary sense

And by “one” I meant “none” (a rather substantive typo)

The current REINS proposal? Likely not. But the same mechanism could be used to, e.g., replace the emergency veto mechanism that used to exist. My point is that Chadha's formalism does not prevent Congress from exercising such authority -- if it wants it.

There’s a lot in the reins act that has nothing to do with any kind legislative veto. And a real legislative veto is made impossible by Chadha.

REINS-like mechanisms can create real legislative vetoed, as Breyer and Tribe both pointed out after Chadha was decided.