ChaseDream
搜索
12下一页
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1905|回复: 11
打印 上一主题 下一主题

急!!!哪里可以找到关于印地安人水权问题的解释或讨论(明天有上了)

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2005-2-19 10:10:00 | 只看该作者

急!!!哪里可以找到关于印地安人水权问题的解释或讨论(明天有上了)

多谢
沙发
发表于 2005-2-19 11:37:00 | 只看该作者

我也问过同样的问题,无果. 也搜索不到


所以猜测估计大家没有讨论过


那篇文章太搞了,那列出来的123不知道是什么DD,你明天就上的话,就背答案吧,呵呵,反正考到的概率也小得很

板凳
发表于 2005-2-19 12:53:00 | 只看该作者

1.       印第安人土地权GWD-3-Q12-Q15


爱维的天-1221-台北


一篇GWD…是有关Native American的,可是不是水权的那篇,现在一时忘了在那儿,找到﹙或是谁知道﹚再告诉大家。


古镯GWD 3 12-15



0411月】【10次】



【版本1】【0411月】(neversober-1118-上海-2



GWD  Lone wolf案(7-10题)GWD-3-Q12 to GWD-3-Q15



【版本2】【0411月】(luckocean-1108--3



GWD 3 12-15



【版本3】【0411月】(Tina_Ding -1115-上海-2



第二篇阅读:GWD中有关美国国会的某个法案造成的影响:不再与印第安人正式来达成某种agreement.



【版本4】【0411月】(Amelia-1120-北美-0



1. GWD long wolf



【版本5】【0411月】(levy -1118-北美-1



1. GWDWolf and Hitchcock, Indian reservation      



【版本6】【0411月】(Looook-1123-?-0)



还碰到了一题和印第安人Reservation有关阅读, 但和GWDwolf的那题不一样. 还是建议认真研究GWD,毕竟可以很好的获得背景知识



【版本7】【0411月】(lindading-1124-US-4)



GWD  Lone wolf案(7-10题)GWD-3-Q12 to GWD-3-Q15



其中两道题目不同:



1   what did the supreme Court decided in the case of Lone wolf in 1903?



My answerNon-Indian people can settle in native American tribes without the tribal consent.



2)       after 1871, what the formal tribal agreements with Native American were treated as?



Answerlegislation passed by both houses of Congress.



GWD 3   Q5-Q7  地球生物。



出主题题外,题目也不同。只记得



If PAH is contaminated by the earth, what should happen to it?



Answerthe concentration of PAH should increase on the surface.



好像很多取非题目。



古镯小心、!小心!请重视GWD的文章和出题的手法



【版本8】【0411月】(Marinezheng-1126-?-1)



GWD-3 Q12-15 Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock 只有主题题一样, 其他都不一样



【版本9】【0411月】(zeng82-1129-上海-2



2篇在第9.gwd上的关于印地安人和最高法院的那个判决的重要作用。但是题目不太一样。大家要小心。有一题,绝对阴险。问题不太一样。但是选项里有一个是原本的那个答案.大家要小心.



【版本10】【0411月】(wxandy-1104-?-1



第一篇:GWD上面的 GWD-3-Q12 to GWD-3-Q15: 题目一模一样



【过往机经】



74. 不到40行,好像只有一段。美国最高法院在某个案件中驳回了印第安部落的某种要求。某人的研究,虽然正确地emphasize了xx(不记得了,因为没有考点),但failed to 考察这个案子far-reaching的影响。那就是,从此以后,美国federal government在实行他们的政策之前,不再和印第安人进行任何正式的谈判。其实这种早在XX时候就开始了(在house 和senate就谁应该在这方面施加更多影响争论之后)。但federal government还是会和印第安部落谈判,只不过他们不再把这种谈判当作正式的国与国之间的negotiation。而这个CASE(最前面提到的那个)之后,好像说就完全停止了,,抱歉,记不太清楚了



主题题:我在两个选项中犹豫了一下,分别是(评价某人的一个研究)和(说明某件事情的影响)。the answer is: 说明某件事情的影响



旧JJ:法律关于美国印第安人的规定。



美国最高法院驳回某印第安人的这一请求:无论联邦还是地方政府,未经印第安人同意,不能征用其地盘。甲认为最高法院这一裁定确认了美国政府的权威。作者认为不仅仅如此,而且开辟了一个新时代:即政府不用凡事与印第安人商量。问题1:主题题。 问题2:甲的目的。



版本二。Federal government has two models for native Americans: 同化(Assimilation这种模型让Native American融入美国法律和社会)和自治(Autonomy就是让Native American自治,federal提供帮助)。解释各自特点,尽管各州反对自治(因为不仅开销大,而且不宜管辖)但仍保留自治(因为native Americans反对同化,且federal government recognize the legitimacy)



版本三:同化政策原住民土地归州所有, 原著民承担公民义务责任. 自主政策是原著民保存自己的土地和相对自主权, 政府的角色是提供贷款和其他支持等. 州政府大部分希望使用同化政策, 而联邦政府选择了自主政策是因为印第安原著民对同化政策的反对以及印第安文化确实值得保留



1. 没有采用同化政策是因为: 印第安原著民反对



2. 哪个是自主政策下可能出现情况: 选政府提供杀虫技术, 不要选贷款(因是来自本地社区)



版本四: 补充1道题 1.文章infer了同化政策与自主政策相比有何区别? 答:政府更倾向于同化政策


[此贴子已经被作者于2005-2-19 12:55:49编辑过]
地板
发表于 2005-2-19 12:59:00 | 只看该作者

看我注亮的地方,其他的在GWD里,记一下答案!关键把出题在原文的对应点找出来!

GG不要太着急了,要相信自己的实力,把会做的一题一题的啃下来,就是最大的胜利!

5#
发表于 2005-2-19 13:50:00 | 只看该作者

印第安人的文章好像在GWD或天山上还有一篇关于水权的?不知记错没?

6#
发表于 2005-2-19 23:31:00 | 只看该作者

GWD 10 Q25-28是关于印第安人水权的。不知是不是你要找的那篇

7#
发表于 2005-2-19 23:49:00 | 只看该作者
鐲子MM,好樣地,,讚一個~~
8#
发表于 2005-2-20 18:08:00 | 只看该作者

印第安人水权的文章应该是这篇吧。祝GG好运哦!

GWD-10 Q25~28

In Winters v. United States

(1908), the Supreme Court held

that the right to use waters flow-

Line ing through or adjacent to the

(5) laceType w:st="on">FortlaceType> laceName w:st="on">BertholdlaceName> Indian Reservation

was reserved to American Indians

by the treaty establishing the res-

ervation. Although this treaty did

not mention water rights, the Court

(10) ruled that the federal government,

when it created the reservation,

intended to deal fairly with

American Indians by preserving

for them the waters without which

(15) their lands would have been use-

less. Later decisions, citing

Winters, established that courts

can find federal rights to reserve

water for particular purposes if

(20) (1) the land in question lies within

an enclave under exclusive federal

jurisdiction, (2) the land has been

formally withdrawn from federal

public lands — i.e., withdrawn from

(25) the stock of federal lands avail-

able for private use under federal

land use laws — and set aside or

reserved, and (3) the circum-

stances reveal the government

(30) intended to reserve water as well

as land when establishing the

reservation.

Some American Indian tribes

have also established water rights

(35) through the courts based on their

traditional diversion and use of

certain waters prior to the United

States’ acquisition of sovereignty.

For example, the Rio Grande

(40) 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

(45) never formally constituted a part

of federal public lands; in any

event, no treaty, statute, or exec-

utive order has ever designated

or withdrawn the pueblos from

(50) public lands as American Indian

reservations. This fact, how-

ever, has not barred application

of the Winters doctrine. What

constitutes an American Indian

(55) 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

(60) approach is buttressed by Arizona

v. California (1963), wherein the

Supreme Court indicated that the

manner in which any type of federal

reservation is created does not

(65) 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,

(70) the year in which pueblos must

be considered to have become

reservations.

Q25:

The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn

from public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?

A. Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to

apply to pueblo lands

B. Imply that the United States never really acquired sovereignty over pueblo lands

C. Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be considered part of federal public

lands

D. Support the argument that the water rights of citizens other than American Indians

are limited by the Winters doctrine

E. Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the

traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians

Answer:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q26:

The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 were the only criteria

for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?

A. The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would

not take precedence over those of other citizens.

B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.

C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.

D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with

reserved water rights.

E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in

order to reserve water for a particular purpose.

Answer:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q27:

According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the

laceType w:st="on">FortlaceType> laceName w:st="on">BertholdlaceName> Indian Reservation?

A. It was challenged in the Supreme Court a number of times.

B. It was rescinded by the federal government, an action that gave rise to the Winters

case.

C. It cited American Indians’ traditional use of the land’s resources.

D. It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants.

E. It was modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.

Answer:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q28:

The primary purpose of the passage is to

A. trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations

B. explain the legal bases for the water rights of American Indian tribes

C. question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of American

Indian tribes

D. discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal government

recognized the water rights of American Indians

E. point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indian

reservations

Answer:

9#
发表于 2005-2-23 14:23:00 | 只看该作者

请问答案是什么? 快要考了, 急救帮忙?

10#
发表于 2005-2-23 14:30:00 | 只看该作者
請參考置頂帖中,答案的連結...
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, 2025-10-3 03:59
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