diligence in every case from here to eternity finds its equivalent in this single expression of legislative power. Runnymede’s legacy cannot countenance this result in the face of Mennonite. Under the district court’s approach, La.Rev.Stat.Ann. 13:3886 would constitute an unnecessarily sweeping, “unreasonable procedure” inconsistent with constitutional limitations upon legislative action. North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman, 268 U.S. 276, 45 S.Ct. 491, 494, 69 L.Ed. 953 (1925). In contrast, we believe that the statute simply supplements Louisiana’s preexisting constructive notice scheme. Cf. Magee v. Amiss, 502 So.2d 568 (La.1987) (due process rights of a community property co-owner violated when she failed to receive actual notice of a sheriff’s Ct. 1785, 85 L.Ed.2d 64 (1985) (<HOLDING>); see also Pope, 108 S.Ct. 1340. Short, Locke
holding that a mineral interest shorn of the executive right and the right to receive delay rentals remains an interest in the mineral fee holding the best interest of the child standard does not violate federal constitutional principles holding constitutional a statute providing that a mineral interest would lapse to the surface owner if the interest owner either made no use of the interest or failed to file a claim with the state within a twenty year period holding that neither mere participation in a federal program nor provision requiring compliance with federal law is sufficient to establish that the state consented to be sued in federal court holding constitutional a federal recording system requiring owners of certain mineral interests on federal lands to file annual claims of their interest in the absence of which the interest would escheat to the federal government