Welcome guest, is this your first visit?
Member
Discoveries
 
Results 1 to 7 of 7
Like Tree16Likes
  • 10 Post By ratled
  • 5 Post By Goldwasher
  • 1 Post By OregonGold76

Thread: More on Rinehart

« Prev Thread | Next Thread »
  1. #1

    Feb 2014
    732
    1762 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting

    More on Rinehart

    Ok want to know what the opposition thinks of the Rinehart case? This is from one of their sights. I'll cut n pasted it in case it winds upon on a Clinton 2016 server

    MAKE THE CALLS, SEND THOSE LETTERS!

    Have a good weekend!! Going on a walk about myself to enough the sunshine and know we have a chance to make a differance

    ratled

    Look Out Below! | Legal Planet

    Look Out Below!

    U.S. Supreme Court Signals Interest in Key Environmental Law/Federal Preemption Case From California
    The U.S. Supreme Court today signaled that it is seriously considering whether to review an important environmental law case from California—one in which the California Supreme Court previously ruled that California’s ban on environmentally-damaging suction dredging in state rivers is not preempted by federal law.

    The case is People v. Rinehart, U.S. Supreme Court No. 16-970. Last summer, the California Supreme Court unanimously rejected a novel defense raised by the defendant in a criminal environmental enforcement prosecution: that the federal Mining Act of 1872 preempts state law under which the defendant was convicted of illegal suction dredging in a Northern California river located within a national forest. (Suction dredging, a mining technique used by commercial and amateur miners to extract precious metals from waterways, is currently banned in California because of the often-profound damage it inflicts on river ecosystems.) Miner Rinehart argued that federal law—most prominently the Mining Act—preempts the state suction dredging ban because he was mining within the boundaries of a national forest. The state ban, he unsuccessfully argued, can’t be enforced on federal lands.

    Rinehart, represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case and reverse his conviction under California law. In today’s order, the Supreme Court “invited” the views of the Trump Administration’s acting Solicitor General as to whether Rinehart’s petition for certiorari should be granted. (While styled as an invitation, such an order is traditionally and understandably viewed by U.S. Justice Department attorneys as a directive from the justices, rather than an option.)

    While not a guarantee that the Supreme Court will grant review, the Court’s order is significant because it reveals that the Rinehart case is, at a minimum, on the justices’ “A” list, and that at least some of them believe the case is potentially “cert-worthy.”

    Legal Planet colleagues Sean Hecht, Eric Biber and I have all previously blogged about the details and significance of the California Supreme Court’s 2016 Rinehart decision. But now the ultimate fate of that important preemption/federalism decision is in question.
    There’s a most interesting subplot to the Rinehart case now that it’s before the U.S. Supreme Court: the Obama Justice Department surprised some observers when in 2015 it filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the California Supreme Court arguing for the proposition that California’s suction dredging ban is not preempted by federal law and can be enforced even within national forests. It’s rare for the federal government to appear as amicus in state court cases to argue against federal preemption, and the Justice Department’s arguments likely were quite influential before the California Supreme Court. So it will be most interesting to see whether the Trump Administration’s Justice Department will adhere to that position in the U.S. Supreme Court or, instead, switches sides and argue before the High Court that California’s suction dredging ban should be (pardon the expression) “trumped” by federal law.


    That decision, in turn, will reveal a great deal about President Trump’s professed affection for “states’ rights”: is that a consistent principle underlying the Trump Administration, or does it only apply when states seek to weaken, rather than strengthen, environmental laws?
    Never confuse motion with progress


    Illegitimi non carborundum

    __________________
    ███ ████ everything ████ ███ ███████ ██ is ███████ fine █████.
    ███████ ██ ████ trust █████ your █████ ███ government.

  2. #2
    us
    May 2009
    Sailor Flat, Ca.
    Gold Bug Pro, Gold Bug 2 Burlap, fish oil,
    3,848
    8125 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting
    Banner Finds (1)
    Banned BECAUSE of the often profound damage.

    Give me a break

  3. #3
    us
    Love Gold

    Oct 2012
    Oregon
    Whites Spectrum XLT, Garrett AT Gold
    65
    99 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting
    I liked how it a mining technique used by us "amateur" miners.
    russau likes this.

  4. #4
    us
    Dec 2013
    Ca
    Whites mxt
    150
    221 times
    Prospecting

    More on Rinehart

    Error in posting

  5. #5
    us
    Apr 2005
    North Carolina
    Garrett GTI 2500 Garrett AT Gold
    5,370
    1548 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting
    It's either articles written by people that don't have a clue, or people that have been brainwashed by the left. If the former it's a shame they don't hire qualified reporters anymore!
    2017 COIN ROLL HUNTING TOTALS!

    Wheats..215
    Buffalos..0
    war nickels.0
    Silv Dimes...-0
    Silv Quarters-0/0
    Barbers-0/0
    Walker 0
    Bens- 0
    Kenn. 90%- 2
    Kenn. 40%- 18
    Proof- 1
    Silv. Proof -1
    Commemorative-0/0

  6. #6

    Feb 2014
    732
    1762 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting
    "Legal Planet, (who the "article" is from) is a collaboration between faculty at UC Berkeley School of Law and UCLA School of Law, provides insight and analysis on energy and environmental law and policy. The blog draws upon the individual research strengths and expertise of the law schools’ legal scholars and think tanks."
    Never confuse motion with progress


    Illegitimi non carborundum

    __________________
    ███ ████ everything ████ ███ ███████ ██ is ███████ fine █████.
    ███████ ██ ████ trust █████ your █████ ███ government.

  7. #7
    us
    Dec 2013
    Crockett, California
    Fisher 1212-x Fisher Gold Bug 2 Whites 4900/SP3 Rocker boxes, Keene sluices, Bazooka sluice, AMP sluice, 2.5" dredge, 4" dredge, highbankers Witch Sticks.
    140
    146 times
    Prospecting
    Wow gotta love Berzerkeley.

 

 

Remove Ads

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Rinehart update
    By ratled in forum Gold Prospecting
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Yesterday, 11:50 AM
  2. Rinehart update 6/11
    By ratled in forum Gold Prospecting
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Jun 12, 2015, 08:23 AM
  3. Rinehart Updates
    By ratled in forum Gold Prospecting
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 18, 2015, 11:49 PM
  4. Rinehart gets more support!!
    By ratled in forum Gold Prospecting
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Feb 21, 2015, 09:50 AM
  5. THANK YOU BRANDON RINEHART
    By jog in forum Gold Prospecting
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: Jan 15, 2015, 08:54 AM
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.3.0