[求助]GWD-3-13

      In its 1903 decision in the case

            of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the United

            States Supreme Court rejected the

Line     efforts of three Native American tribes

  (5)      to prevent the opening of tribal lands

to non-Indian settlement without tribal

consent.  In his study of the Lone

Wolf case, Blue Clark properly

emphasizes the Court’s assertion

(10)     of a virtually unlimited unilateral power

of Congress (the House of Represen-

tatives and the Senate) over Native

American affairs.  But he fails to note

the decision’s more far-reaching

(15)     impact:  shortly after Lone Wolf, the

federal government totally abandoned

negotiation and execution of formal

written agreements with Indian tribes

as a prerequisite for the implemen-

(20)     tation of federal Indian policy.  Many

commentators believe that this change

had already occurred in 1871 when—

following a dispute between the

            House and the Senate over which

(25)     chamber should enjoy primacy in

Indian affairs—Congress abolished

the making of treaties with Native

American tribes.  But in reality the

federal government continued to nego-

(30)     tiate formal tribal agreements past

the turn of the century, treating these

documents not as treaties with sover-

            eign nations requiring ratification by the

Senate but simply as legislation to be

(35)     passed by both houses of Congress.

            The Lone Wolf decision ended this

era of formal negotiation and finally

did away with what had increasingly

become the empty formality of obtain-

ing tribal consent.

答案是D

其实做的时候我也选D，现在复，想得多了，反而不明白了，既然原先negotiate是prerequisition,那是不是意思说是必须要negotiate的呢？而不是题目里的sometimes呢？还是这个sometime其实是NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE缘故，因为有时候他们觉得没必要，他们认为政府给出的treaty能够接受。。。。是这个意思吗？

别的答案看了，没什么可选的~~

请牛牛指教！谢谢先！

看这里（我认为的）

But in reality the

federal government continued to nego-

(30)     tiate formal tribal agreements past

the turn of the century,

这里讲了federal government 和那个Native American tribes.的关系

我想如果in reality 而且是continued的去negotiation 那么在1871年以前他们也是 negotiation

而且but 是信号词，OG中有很多题目都是通过题眼来解得

我觉得你指出的内容可以说明：

一、treaty with主权国家是需要the Senate批准的,而legislation 则是需要both houses of Congress通过才可生效，

二、但不能就此说明1871年以后在NA事务上，senate比representative的权力就更大。

同意楼上。

其实文章讨论的焦点根本就不是参、众两院谁的权利更大，而是代表政府机构的一方（政府、法院、参、众两院） 与土著部落之间的关系，所有的出发点应由此生。

还是不明白啊，D中sometimes为什么用怎么没解释呢，我觉得D的意思是1871年前，政府只是偶尔才和部落协商，但根据文意协商是前提，即在处理部族问题是必须协商，不是偶尔的问题。

E的话可以理解啊，因为1871年前是senate来决定文件是否通过的，而1871年后是国会决定，也就是在这个问题上senate没有了决定权，凭什么不能说是此时国会在处理此类问题上比议院权力更大？

回去又看了看，终于明白了！！E果然是swlfx说的原因错。

另外D对的原因可能是只有在定INDIAN政策是政府才一定要谈判，而

But in reality the federal government
        continued to negotiate formal tribal agreements past the turn of the century, treating these documents
            not as treaties with sovereign nations requiring ratification
            by the Senate but
        simply as legislation to be passed
            by both houses of Congress

e中有一个最重要的错误说：the house 比 the senete 权利大，但是原文中说的意思是以前必须获得the senate 的正式批准，现在 simply to be passed by both houses of congress，both 说明 include bothe the senate and the house, so we can not conclude that the house has more power.