Mining claims are strange legal beasts, rooted in the frontier era of homesteading and largely unchanged by the passing of the years. In most other countries, a miner petitions the government for permission to mine on public lands.
But under the General Mining Law of 1872, which underpins the House bill, people or companies can essentially raise a hand and declare that the silver or gold or copper under the earth is theirs. The claim is then considered a legally defensible right, though since 1994 Congress has barred claims from passing to full legal ownership, a process called patenting. The House bill would end that moratorium.
-- Bill Authorizes Private Purchase of Federal Land
The article itself sort of buries these imho key two paragraphs deep inside the article -- it contrasts what we have for over a century deemed an appropriate (if "we" think of it at all) practice when "most other countries" would find it rather strange, or rather, ignoring the public interest for the private gain of a few. In fact, when the Secretary of the Interior of the Clinton Administration suggested slight raises in user fees, it is not too surprising representatives of interests that becry government subsidized welfare as such cried bloody murder. Likewise, the guy was deemed verboten as Supreme Court material.
As with the lack of universal health care, reasonable drug policies, prohibition of the death penalty, and so forth, our outlier national policies are not just seen as the "right" way of doing things, but seen by the powers that be to be not conservative enough. Something to think about while not considered how lousy the war and such is being handled. On that front, the Justice Department -- having their Fourth Circuit victory [and fearing a Supreme Court review] -- decided to actually indict Jose Padilla after over three years:
Jose Padilla, an American citizen held without charge for more than three years as an enemy combatant, has been indicted in what the federal authorities said today was a plot to "murder, kidnap and maim" people overseas. ...
The Bush administration position that it has the right to hold Mr. Padilla without formal charges as an enemy combatant, despite his citizenship, was upheld two months ago by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, which threw out a lower court ruling to the contrary. ...
Although today Mr. Gonzales described Mr. Padilla as a violent jihadist, there was no mention of the earlier "dirty bomb" accusation, which was never the subject of formal charges. Nor was there a mention in the indictment of any violence that Mr. Padilla had hoped to wreak in the United States.
The indictment actually was a new set of charges, adding Padilla to an existing criminal case in Florida against Adham Hassoun, Mohomed Youssef and Kifah Jayyousi, accused of terrorism-related crimes. Besides adding Padilla, the indictment also named a Canadian national, Kassem Daher.
I know him being held as an "enemy combatant" without a hearing and so forth is technically a separate matter, but does this indictment (something like the third reason given to why he allegedly is dangerous) not raise speedy trial concerns? Three years after all ... yes, I know, he was held in non-criminal confinement. On the other hand, if the SC actually deigned to review his case last year instead of their lame punt, it probably would have held that the detainment was improper. Anyway, glad the Justice Department found the time.
Meanwhile, I discuss Judge Alito's religious jurisprudence here, following up with some comments on a Slate article on the same subject that was posted later in the day.