I see someone else might have a copy of Black's Law Dictionary. The only thing I might add is that such Bills of Attainder are prohibited in Article I, section 9 of the Constitution of 1789. It also prohibited Ex Post Facto laws. This last one has been violated at least once that I can think of.
You've consistently made bold statements here about miners rights being restricted. At no time have you been willing to back up those statements. I really do wonder sometimes why you even bother posting into the TNet gold forums chlsbrns. A more cynical man might suspect you are anti mining. I will go on the assumption, for now, that you are just misinformed and uneducated in mining law. I'll try to help you get over that disability but you are going to have to show more initiative than just pointing to US Code.
Lets begin with the biggest misunderstanding in your list - the 1955 Multiple Use Act. Many government agencies have claimed this Act amended the mining laws. Now you are joining them in that opinion. There has been some misunderstanding on this Act but under our system of government we have a separate branch of government that has the duty to clear up these misunderstandings - the judicial branch. The top level of the judicial branch is the Supreme Court of the United States. Lucky for us the Supreme Court went to great lengths to investigate this Act of Congress. They made a final ruling as to whether the 1855 Multiple Use Act changed the mining laws in Converse v Utah 1968.
This is from U.S. V. Curtis_Nevada Mines 1980.
You see chlsbrns previous Acts of Congress (Federal laws) are never repealed by implication. Congress must explicitly amend a previous law. The mining acts have been amended from time to time. Here is an example of the language Congress uses to amend or repeal an existing law. This is from the 1870 Placer Act - notice the language and how they are very clear that this is an amendment to a previous specific named law:
And here is a repeal of a mining law from Section 9 of the 1872 Mining Act:
Now your job, should you wish to prove your point, will be to find those phrases in bold (or words to that effect) in any of the Congressional Acts you believe might have amended or repealed the existing Mining Acts. When you have discovered specific amendments or repeals to the Mining Acts I hope you will share your new found knowledge with us.
Now you have been educated and informed.
Heavy Pans
I had hoped you would take this opportunity to learn and increase your knowledge chlsbrns. Spending your research time trying to rebut Supreme Court decisions can be rather fruitless - as you discovered.
The US Code you refer to above is not a quote of the 1872 Mining Act it is a derivative of R.S. §2322 which is an old abandoned restatement (not law) of the 1872 Act. There was no intention to quote the actual law. This is the nature of Codification - it is a readers digest version of law. Discover the difference between Positive Law and Non Positive Law in the Code.
I should point out that Title 30 of the US Code is not positive law, was not enacted by Congress and should not be relied on as a definitive source of law. In other words - not good enough. Go back and find the law and the amendments to that law. You can do that on the internet but you will need to read the instructions on the various source sites before you read the materials and make conclusions based on incomplete knowledge of the tools you are using. (see below)
If you study the Guide to the US Code at the site you linked to you will understand that there is a lot more to sourcing the Code than you presumed. That is how you were mislead in your understanding of the significance of the portion of USC 30 you offered.
Quoting the Code itself and comparing it the the actual positive law enacted by Congress might reveal some inconsistencies in the Code but it will not provide a direct comparison based on current law. Including the Supreme Court decision I gave you. Trying to substitute your beliefs for the Supreme Court's decisions is a losers game in the only place it matters - in court.
I see a real desire on your part to know this material chlsbrns. Please try to concentrate on the subject matter and avoid the google and wilderness.net distractions. Look to the actual law for a complete understanding. Keep doing the research and you can become an asset to your fellow miners.
Heavy Pans
I'm not sure who brought up the subject of hydraulic mining? Here's the skinny on the law in California-
Never has been illegal.
Thank you chlsbrns. My faith is restored in you. I was beginning to think your intent was to derail this thread. It is time to move on.
Now maybe we can get back to the subject of Brandon's case continuing to succeed against the State of California's prosecution of his exercise of his mining rights.
Heavy Pans
