|
本人英语不好，希望通过翻译文章，把基本功提上来，这篇文章有很多细节都不是太明白，希望大家帮忙看看的对不对，有很多理解也不明白，谢谢
In its 1903 decision in the case of LoneWolf v. Hitchcock, the United States Supreme Court rejected the efforts ofthree Native American tribes to prevent the opening of tribal lands to non-Indian settlementwithout tribal consent. In his study of the Lone Wolf case, BlueClark properly emphasizes theCourt's assertionof a virtuallyunlimited unilateralpower of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) over NativeAmerican affairs. But he fails to note the decision's more far-reachingimpact: shortly after Lone Wolf, thefederal government totally abandoned negotiation and execution of formalwritten agreements with Indian tribes as a prerequisite for the implementation of federalIndian policy. Many commentators believe that this change had already occurredin 1871 when--following a disputebetween the House and the Senate over which chamber should enjoy primacy in Indian affairs--Congress abolished themaking of treatieswith Native American tribes. But in reality the federal government continued tonegotiate 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 aslegislation to be passed by both houses of Congress. The Lone Wolfdecision ended this era of formal negotiation and finally did away with whathad increasingly become the empty formality ofobtaining tribal consent.
在1903年Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock裁决中，美国最高法院驳回了三个美国原住民部落有关非印第安需经过印第安人同意才能使用印第安土地的请求。Blue Clark在他关于Lone Wolf案例的论文中强调美国最高法院对于美国国会在处理美国原住民事物时单边权利既成事实的认可。但是，他并没有意识到这个案例的深远影响：Lone Wolf案例后不久，联邦政府在实行对印第安人政策时完全放弃了与印第安部落协商并签署协议作为先决条件的作法。很多评论家都认为这一变化发生在1871年-这一年众院与议院在谁在管理印第安部落事物上具有优先权展开了辩论-国会取消了与印第安部落签订协议的作法。但是，事实上，联邦政府依然继续与印第安部落协商协议，然而，使这些协议生效就必须需要国会的同意才能使其合法化。Lone Wolf的案例结束了与印第安部落正式协商的时代，同时在极大程度上不在经过部落的同意。 | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-8-28 14:36:42
收藏
收藏
