Archive for americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org mining, mining law, prospector, mining claim, 1865, 1866, 1872, legal, illegal, government, policy, administrative, mineral, grant, right, forest, service, BLM, DEQ, wild, scenic, hobby, gold, placer, hard, rock, hardrock, dredging, highbanking
 


       americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> General
Glindberg

Chains of Authority

I am posting here vice in the classroom as to not dilute that thread. As compared to others I am a relatively new comer to understanding the mining laws and speaking for myself Relish the challenges of the Questions asked to understand how the pertain to the Grants. Now if it seem or appears that I get of course sorry it is part of the Learning experience. For me its the only way to try and maybe attain the knowledge of 1866, Woof!, Gold Patriot and others.That said,bring on the questions though I maybe wrong in anwsers I'll take on That Challenge!
Glindberg

Also shouldn't we also have an understanding as to where an adversary's understanding coming from? Not to say it needs to be something run trough the ringer persay but some understanding does help in the gaining of knowledge, does it not?
1866

Okay, Glindberg, I guess you've asked for it.

This is Title 43, Subpart 2300.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/t...;node=43:2.1.1.2.13.1&idno=43

43 2300.0-3 outlines the purported authority of the Secretary of the Interior to create mineral withdrawals.

Can you shoot any holes in it?

I can tell you right now that the Sec. of the Interior has ZERO LAWFUL AUTHORITY to withdraw unappropriated mineral deposits from entry.
Glindberg

Well if I was clasified as teacher's pet..........think I ended that, printer is busy, at least I am working nights tonight, lots to read and look over. Hey someone wanna pass me some ketch-up.......might cover up the taste of crow heading my way, (hopefully I'll start to have a reponse soon)
1866

No worries, just consider it an excercise.
Woof!

1866 wrote:
Okay, Glindberg, I guess you've asked for it.

This is Title 43, Subpart 2300.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/t...;node=43:2.1.1.2.13.1&idno=43


43 2300.0-3 outlines the purported authority of the Secretary of the Interior to create mineral withdrawals.

Can you shoot any holes in it?

I can tell you right now that the Sec. of the Interior has ZERO LAWFUL AUTHORITY to withdraw unappropriated mineral deposits from entry.


Sorry 1866 but I've got a big objection to what you wrote above.

That is very definitely NOT Title 43 nor is it any law.

It is the CFR and is full of mealy mouthed language pretending to show why they can do something that is to be found nowhere in any law.

USC Title 43 can be found here:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/43/35/II/1714

It might be an interesting exercise to compare what was codified as law and what nonsense has been made from it by the DOI.  Laughing
1866

Woof, you are correct, it IS in fact a CFR (not sure what else I was thinking about at the time - probably five other things). As well, it does pretend to do show something that they cannot do.

Ultimately, there is an excercise here in chains of authority.
daubster

In Title 43 section 1714

I found this in subsection j

(j) Applicability of other Federal laws withdrawing lands as
limiting authority
The Secretary shall not make, modify, or revoke any withdrawal
created by Act of Congress; make a withdrawal which can be made
only by Act of Congress
.

Should this lead me to believe that lands open to mineral entry can only
be withdrawn by an Act of Congress.

Or is the Grant even more powerful? As I understand the Grant, once
given can't be taken away.

I am only beginning to come to grips with the power held in this gift.
1866

While Congress does have an authority, they are also limited by the United States Constitution (or at least they are SUPPOSED to be).

Again, read Fletcher v. Peck. As Woof pointed out, that suggestion is not for mere amusement.

There is a power in this grant that even exceeds the authority of Congress. Essentially, there is nothing lawful about the Grantor going back and stealing from the Grantee, regardless of if the land is in actual possession of a grantee or not.

That said, the CFR linked above is purely administrative and it is important to point out that even though this administrative nonsense is not law, more often than not, what will be thrown at a miner by the agency is administrative policy.
eastcreek

New Acts?

43 U.S.C. 1714 : US Code - Section 1714: Withdrawals of lands

Is this addressing what will need to occur if the land grab going on in Oregon is to come to fruition? Can a new Act of Congress override the old?

It mentions them taking into consideration the financial effects it would have on all involved. This being the case, I can't imagine the Oregon land grab will happen...assuming they actually do what they say they are going to do.
lastchancelarry

FROM: Search 43 U.S.C. 1714 : US Code - Section 1714: Withdrawals of lands

(2) With the notices required by subsection (c)(1) of this
section and within three months after filing the notice under
subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary shall furnish to the
committees -

(1) a clear explanation of the proposed use of the land
involved which led to the withdrawal;
(2) an inventory and evaluation of the current natural resource
uses and values of the site and adjacent public and nonpublic
land and how it appears they will be affected by the proposed
use
, including particularly aspects of use that might cause
degradation of the environment, and also the economic impact of
the change in use on individuals, local communities, and the
Nation;

(3) an identification of present users of the land involved,
and how they will be affected by the proposed use;

(4) an analysis of the manner in which existing and potential
resource uses are incompatible with or in conflict with the
proposed use, together with a statement of the provisions to be
made for continuation or termination of existing uses, including
an economic analysis of such continuation or termination;
(5) an analysis of the manner in which such lands will be used
in relation to the specific requirements for the proposed use;
(6) a statement as to whether any suitable alternative sites
are available
(including cost estimates) for the proposed use or
for uses such a withdrawal would displace;

(7) a statement of the consultation which has been or will be
had with other Federal departments and agencies, with regional,
State, and local government bodies, and with other appropriate
individuals and groups;
8. a statement indicating the effect of the proposed uses, if
any, on State and local government interests and the regional
economy;

(9) a statement of the expected length of time needed for the
withdrawal;
(10) the time and place of hearings and of other public
involvement concerning such withdrawal
;
(11) the place where the records on the withdrawal can be
examined by interested parties; and
(12) a report prepared by a qualified mining engineer,
engineering geologist, or geologist which shall include but not
be limited to information on: general geology, known mineral
deposits, past and present mineral production, mining claims,
mineral leases, evaluation of future mineral potential, present
and potential market demands.
lastchancelarry

is the clear explanation to withdraw the lands in question available to the public and are we then allowed to challenge that explanation? Where can this be found? Can we read that report by a qualified mining engineer, mining geologist or geologist and One can bet it was done by a geologist not a mining engineer!!
daubster

lastchancelarry wrote:
is the clear explanation to withdraw the lands in question available to the public and are we then allowed to challenge that explanation? Where can this be found? Can we read that report by a qualified mining engineer, mining geologist or geologist and One can bet it was done by a geologist not a mining engineer!!


LOL They invite the public that they want to attend. The geologist will
be on the payroll of Sierra Club, Pew, or some other group that supports
agenda 21.

       americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> General
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home