ChaseDream
搜索
12下一页
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 5384|回复: 12
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[求助]OG12-12(57-63)看不懂文章

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2009-10-11 14:29:00 | 只看该作者

[求助]OG12-12(57-63)看不懂文章

In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme
Court held that the right to use waters flowing through
or adjacent to the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation
was reserved to American Indians by the treaty

(5)   establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did
not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the
federal government, wen it created the reservation,
intended to deal fairly with American Indians by
reserving for them the waters without which their

(10) lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citing
Winters, established that courts can find federal rights
to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land
in question lies within an enclave under exclusive
federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally

(15) withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn
from the stock of federal lands available for private
use under federal land use laws—and set aside or
reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the
government intended to reserve water as well as land

(20) when establishing the reservation.

Some American Indian tribes have also established
water rights through the courts based on their
traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to
the United States' acquisition of sovereignty. For

(25) example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when
the United States acquired sovereignty over New
Mexico in 1848. Although they at that time became
part of the United States, the pueblo lands never
formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in

(30) any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has
ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public
lands as American Indian reservations. This fact,
however, has not barred application of the
Winters
doctrine. What constitutes an American Indian

(35) reservation is a question of practice, not of legal
definition, and the pueblos have always been treated
as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic
approach is buttressed by
Arizona v. California
(1963),
wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner

(40) in which any type of federal reservation is created
does not affect the application to it of the
Winters
doctrine. Therefore, the reserved water rights of
Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens' water
rights as of 1848, the year in which pueblos
must be

(45) considered to have become reservations.

这篇文章实在看不懂,特别是亮黄色部分,nn能不能大概讲述一下这篇文章大概什么意思啊?谢谢~~

沙发
 楼主| 发表于 2009-10-11 16:07:00 | 只看该作者

找到这题的讨论了,原来这题是gwd里面的。。。

板凳
发表于 2009-12-27 17:27:53 | 只看该作者

该题的 GWD 题号?

RT  谢谢

愣是没看懂!
地板
发表于 2009-12-29 17:24:34 | 只看该作者
呵呵,这个是著名的变态的印第安纳水权题~!你去搜索帖子里搜“水权”就可以啦。我昨天也被它给秒杀了……
5#
发表于 2010-1-9 10:28:32 | 只看该作者
我也被这篇文章折磨死了!
6#
发表于 2010-1-20 07:26:52 | 只看该作者
找到组织了....刚做完很郁闷,都想放弃了
7#
发表于 2010-2-7 15:39:31 | 只看该作者
别急 仔细看   “the right..... was reserved to American Indians” 和“reserving for them the waters ”    仔细体会  这里 to和for 的意思  然后顺着向下看 就明白了
8#
发表于 2010-9-28 20:25:49 | 只看该作者
原来同道的人这么多。。稍稍平衡点了。。
9#
发表于 2010-10-2 22:32:49 | 只看该作者
还好。原来是著名难题。心态平衡了。
10#
发表于 2010-10-3 08:38:50 | 只看该作者
水权问题,其实仔细看一下就懂了
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-4-29 12:32
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2025 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部