标题: 印第安水权那篇阅读 求NN进来帮忙看下 搜了好多前辈贴子依然不明白 [打印本页] 作者: ljwqlcl881703 时间: 2012-9-7 15:56 标题: 印第安水权那篇阅读 求NN进来帮忙看下 搜了好多前辈贴子依然不明白 In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters fl owing through or adjacent to the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did 5 not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the federal government, when it created the reservation, intended to deal fairly with American Indians by reserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citing 10 Winters, established that courts can fi nd 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if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn 15 from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws—and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the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 when establishing the reservation. 20 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 example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when 25 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a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has 30 ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations.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 reservation is a question of practice, not of legal 35 defi nition, 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 in which any type of federal reservation is created 40 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 considered to have become reservations. 45
58.The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 10-20 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 Belknap Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens. B Reservations established before 1848 would be juged to have no water rights. C There would be nolegal 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. 答案:C 请NN帮忙解释另外4个为啥错了 望能详细点 还有C答案 好多前辈的帖子中指出 C不符合W法案后来补充的3个条件 2,3确实不符合 1为啥就不符合了 再说了C答案明确的指出是后面35行（not of legal definition）跟这三个条件无关啊 为啥能选C 望NN解答 目前已入坑 爬不上来了~~~作者: miffyhui 时间: 2012-9-7 16:31
当时看这篇文章的时候我个人认为，If （1），（2），and（3）是必须同时满足的，不是，If （1），（2），or（3）---不知道对不 所以如果不满足其中一条都不可以 根据文章的结构前面讲的是必须满足这些条件，后面部分是特例 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. 说明在不满足的条件下，也可以然后bla bla解释了一通 题目问的是if the criteria discussed in lines 10-20 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation's water rights,which of the following would be true? 那么后面的这个情况就不存在了 答案就是There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.作者: ljwqlcl881703 时间: 2012-10-19 17:20
谢谢~~~