求助 OG 388面 water rights那一篇~

clairhuang · 发表于 2010-2-27 21:14:20

有没有牛牛讲解一下OG 382面 water rights 那一篇啊~~ 看了几遍思路不是很清晰做题时只有对文章大概内容的感觉还模模糊糊的错了一半~~谢谢啦~

橘树圣诞节 · 发表于 2010-3-3 13:02:08

同求！！！！！！！！！

edwardelric · 发表于 2010-3-3 15:43:18

In its 1903 decision in the case 1903年，美国最高法院对LW案作出
  of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the United 判决，驳回三个本土美国部落要求“非
  States Supreme Court rejected the 印第安人在部落土地安家必须得到部落
Line   efforts of three Native American tribes 批准”。
(5)   to prevent the opening of tribal lands
to non-Indian settlement without tribal
consent. In his study of the Lone BC对此案的研究恰当地强调了，法院
Wolf case, Blue Clark properly 肯定了国会拥有处理本土美国人事务的
emphasizes the Court’s assertion 不受限单方权力。
(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 但BC遗漏了这项判决更深远的影响：
the decision’s more far-reaching 案件过后不久，联邦政府完全放弃了
(15)   impact: shortly after Lone Wolf, the 与印第安部落谈判，放弃了把正规的
federal government totally abandoned 书面协议的执行作为实施联邦印第安
negotiation and execution of formal 政策的先决条件。
written agreements with Indian tribes
as a prerequisite for the implemen-
(20)   tation of federal Indian policy. Many 很多评论员相信这一转变早在1871年
commentators believe that this change 国会废除与本土部落订立条约时就发
had already occurred in 1871 when— 生了。这一废除是跟随议院和上院争
following a dispute between the 论谁应主导印第安事务发生的。
  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 但事实上，世纪之交后，联邦政府一直
federal government continued to nego- 在协商正式的部落协议，它并非把这些
(30)   tiate formal tribal agreements past 文件看作有待上院批准的与独立国签
the turn of the century, treating these 署的条约，而是有待两个议院通过的立
documents not as treaties with sover- 法。
  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 LW案件的判决终结了正式谈判时代，
era of formal negotiation and finally 并最终摆脱了得到部落同意的空洞形
did away with what had increasingly 式。
become the empty formality of obtain-
ing tribal consent.
现象解释
逻辑简图：
1903, L case. BC properly emphasize Congress. But fails to note far-reaching impact. Many commentators believe change in 1871. But in reality continued but simply as.. L case ended this era….
你说的是这个不？

c_love · 发表于 2010-3-9 18:38:55

额~~谢谢~~~

求助 OG 388面 water rights那一篇~

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

浏览过的版块