Posted on 08/03/2002 12:05:07 PM PDT by Action-America
by William Perry Pendley
August 1, 2002
In 1872, Congress enacted the General Mining Law, allowing miners to enter onto federal land, locate valuable mineral deposits, and then develop those minerals. Once claims were staked, they were inviolate against all others, except the United States, which could challenge their validity at any time. Miners had to perform annual assessment work or else the land was open to relocation by rival claimants as if no prior claim existed. However, if the original claimant resumed work before such relocation, the claim was preserved. Often called the “resumption doctrine,” this is the “statutory right to resume work.”
While the “right to resume work” protected claims against rival miners, did it apply to the United States? In 1930, the United States told the U.S. Supreme Court that it did not: claims were forfeited if a miner failed to perform assessment work, even if the miner resumed work before a challenge by the United States. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that argument, emphasizing: “[I]t is…clear that [a miner] maintains his claim…by a resumption of work…. Such resumption does not restore a lost estate; it preserves an existing estate.” Thereafter, the United States challenged claims for lack of assessment work only during a lapse in the work; but the Supreme Court later rejected that too, ruling that there was no authority for it. In 1970, the Supreme Court backtracked slightly: the United States did have that authority. But the Supreme Court left its 1930 ruling standing: a miner maintained his claim if he resumed work before the United States challenged his claims.
Not surprisingly, given the frequent and consistent rulings of the Supreme Court affirming the rights of a miner to “preserve an existing [claim]” by resuming assessment work, the United States took the view, from 1930 on, that claims were invalid only if the United States instituted its challenge during a lapse in assessment work. Then in 1993, in Clinton’s first year, the United States reversed 63 years of official policy and rejected the rulings of the Supreme Court: the statutory right to resume work was dead; in its place was a regulation that automatically voided claims upon a lapse in assessment work.
Meanwhile, in 1917, four oil shale claims were located on 520 acres in Uintah County, Utah. In March 1989, the owner of the claims, Cliffs Synfuel Corporation, filed an application for title (patent) to those claims. In October 1992, the United States said Cliffs had complied with federal law and was entitled to a certificate ending its duty to perform assessment work. But in 1996, the United States declared the claims null and void because, during the 75 years the claims were held, there had been a lapse in assessment work, which the United States had never challenged. A federal district court reinstated the claims, holding, “the Supreme Court knows how to say a statute is invalid;” because it did not declare the statutory right to resume work invalid, that provision was still alive!
The Bush Administration appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit. On May 6, 2002, lawyers from Bush’s Justice Department argued that 63 years of interpreting the mining law were irrelevant and the Supreme Court’s decisions, which had bound the federal government for nine presidencies, were wrong. A three judge panel, deferring to the federal government’s expertise, agreed: the claims were null and void. Cliffs asked the entire Tenth Circuit to rehear the case and will petition the Supreme Court if the Tenth Circuit fails to rectify its error. President Bush reportedly is seeking to restore stability and steadfastness to a Justice Department that had a reputation, during Clinton’s years, for scandal and schizophrenia. But which is worthy of Bush’s embrace: three Supreme Court rulings and the official policy of nine presidents spanning more than six decades, or a dubious regulation adopted because of the anti-mining zealotry of William Jefferson Clinton? Sadly, Bush chose the latter.
Each month, MSLF president and chief legal officer William Perry Pendley publishes his monthly column, Summary Judgment. A hard-hitting commentary on environmental, federal lands, natural resources, or private property rights issues, Summary Judgment is carried by newspapers, magazines, newsletters and other publications throughout the country. So topical are the issues addressed by Summary Judgment that they are often the focus of talk radio discussion for weeks after the column is sent out at the end of each month. Summary Judgment runs 650 words and may be reprinted so long as credit is given to William Perry Pendley and to Mountain States Legal Foundation. A glossy photograph of the author is available.
What are these keywords about?
That's just the work of some bushbot, who added those keywords after the fact, as a way of calling names, since he had no argument to support his position. Unfortunately, there are only a few of his supporters on FR who will actually try to defend his left-leaning actions with anything resembling facts or logic, and they are not that active. The rest just resort to calling names and playing with keywords.
The fact remains that three Supreme Court rulings (one unanimous) support the argument of the business that the administration is attacking. Once again, Dubya is going after a business, to look good for his Democrat handlers.
Tancredo for President 2004!
Draft Dr. Ron Paul in 2004!
And you replt with an insult as well. What does that say about you?
 |
Amen. |
Heck, they've already won. Bush gives them 85% of everything they want, and in turn they've learned to ask for 20% more.
What the heck are you talking about? The author of this piece is William Perry Pendley, from the Mountain States Legal Foundation. Extreme left wing? LOL. Go check 'em out, inform yourself. This group does fabulous work.
Which branch? Army, Navy, Marines?
President Bush is a 'uniter not divider' don't you know. He's not going to create division by vetoes. If the Congress (peoples representatives) pass a bill he'll sign it.... Remember we have a new tone in Washington now a days.
LOFL!!!
Yeah, this thread is already a "who's who" of Democrat scumbags, hahaha...
Just leave them alone.... this is the perfect thread for them to sit around and play with each other in a big, scumbag Democrat circle-jerk.
Regards,
LH
Didn't he try that in 1987 or so as a Libertarian? Then he came back to the Republican Party in 1996
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.