开贴--阅读复习--11.29日考试

Alpheaus · 发表于 2011-10-25 11:19:57

10.24-----prep--RC 1----EASSY1\2\3

Alpheaus · 发表于 2011-10-25 11:22:23

EASSY 3--长难句
1.In his study of the Lone Wolf case, Blue Clark properly emphasizes the Court's assertion of a virtually unlimited unilateral power of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) over Native American affairs.
2.In its 1903 decision in the case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the United States Supreme Court rejected the efforts of three Native American tribes to prevent the opening of tribal lands to non-Indian settlement without tribal consent.

lily800gmat · 发表于 2011-10-25 11:45:22

加油

Alpheaus · 发表于 2011-10-25 12:13:39

ESSAY3 背景---摘自WIKIPEDIA
In an effort to confine Indian occupancy and use of land to specific territories, the earliest Indian treaties established the idea of reservations. However, the lure for gold, land, and other resources in Indian territory was a temptation too great for the settlers to resist. Consequently, many Indian tribes were removed westward to large blocks of land reserved for their use with the assurance that the new lands would remain Indian reservations forever. In fact, settlers soon encountered Indian Country as the nation expanded westward. Before long, homesteaders demanded more lands from the government, and the federal policy makers acquiesced by developing programs to diminish the Indians' reservation land base.

Specifically, in 1853 Commissioner of Indian Affairs George Manypenny instituted a general policy of attempting to negotiate allotment provisions in treaties, which converted communally held tribal lands into individually owned parcels. Any surplus lands remaining were then opened to settlement by non-Indians. Congress quickly adopted his policy.Former reservations soon became checkerboarded with non-Indian–owned land.

However, the Dawes Act did not apply to all Indian territory; rather, the allotment of certain areas, particularly those lands in the Oklahoma Territory, required a special act from Congress. In 1892, Congress sent three commissioners, known as the Jerome Commission, to negotiate with the Kiowas, a tribe whose reservation was located in the Oklahoma Territory, for the allotment and cession of their lands. According to the Treaty of Medicine Lodge, no further Kiowa land cessions would occur without the approval of a supermajority of the tribe.

Lone Wolf, the Kiowa chief, led his people in resistance to the allotment of their reservation. Once negotiations faltered, the commissioners fraudulently induced some tribal members to sign various allotment documents under false pretenses.Despite the Kiowas' opposition and any congressional concerns about the fraudulent process used by the commission, in February 1900 Congress proceeded with the allotment.

According to the Court, Congress, through its plenary power, has the authority to abrogate treaties unilaterally if that action is in furtherance of its obligation to care for and protect the Indians.Thus, the Court held that whether a supermajority of the tribe had signed the allotment documents was inconsequential. Rather, because Congress thought it necessary to allot the Kiowa reservation for the care and protection of the tribal members, it was entitled to do so without their assent.

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903) was a United States Supreme Court case brought against the US government by the Kiowa chief Lone Wolf, who charged that Native American tribes under the Medicine Lodge Treaty had been defrauded of land by Congressional actions in violation of the treaty.

Alpheaus · 发表于 2011-10-25 12:23:07

The Court declared that the "plenary power" of the United States Congress gave it authority to unilaterally abrogate treaty obligations between the United States and Native American tribes. The decision marked a departure from the holdings of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832), which had given greater respect to the autonomy of Native American tribes

Alpheaus · 发表于 2011-10-25 12:24:20

谢谢：）

Alpheaus · 发表于 2011-10-28 10:24:28

ESSAT3----U.S. Institutions 美国行政机构

总统办事机构：(Executive Office of the President)

白宫办公厅 (The White House Office)
副总统办公厅 (Office of the Vice President of the United States)
行政管理和预憔?(Office of Management and Budget)
经济顾问委员会 (Council of Economic Advisers)
国家安全委员会 (National Security Council)
美国贸易代表办公室(Office of United States Trade Representatives)
政策制定办公室 (Office of Policy Development)
科学和技术政策办公室 (Office of Science and Technology Policy)
改善环境质量委员会 (Council on Environmental Quality)
国家麻醉品控制政策办公室 (Office of National Drug Control Policy)
行政办公室 (Office of Administration)

政府各部：(Cabinet Department)

国务院 (Department of State)
财政部 (Department of Treasury)
国防部 (Department of Defense)
司法部 (Department of Justice)
商务部 (Department of Commerce)
能源部 (Department of Energy)
内政部 (Department of Interior)
农业部 (Department of Agriculture)
教育部 (Department of Education)
运输部 (Department of Transportation)
劳工部 (Department of Labor)
卫生与公众服务部 (Department of Health and Human services)
住房和城市发展部 (Department of Housing and Urban Development)
退伍军人事务部 (Department of Veterans Affairs)

军事机构：(Military Bodies)

国防部 (Department of Defense)
参谋长联席会议 (Joint Chiefs of Staff)
陆军 (Army)
空军 (Airforce)
海军 (Navy)
海军陆战队 (Marine Corps)
海岸警卫队 (Coast Guard)
后备役部队 (Reserves)
联合作战司令部 (United Combatant Commands)
From: http://www.hxen.com/word/zuzhi/2008-09-28/54855.html

Alpheaus · 发表于 2011-10-28 10:38:52

EASSY3----美国政府构架背景wikipedia
The federal government of the United States is the national government of the constitutional republic of fifty states that is the United States of America. The federal government comprises three distinct branches of government: a legislative, an executive and a judiciary. These branches and their various powers are delineated in the U.S. Constitution; the powers are specified in greater detail in laws enacted by Congress.

The United States Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government. It is bicameral, comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate.

House of Representatives>>>>>The House currently consists of 435 voting members, each of whom represents a congressional district. The number of representatives each state has in the House is based on each state's population as determined in the most recent United States Census. All 435 representatives serve a two-year term. Each state receives a minimum of one representative in the House.

Senate>>>>>>>In contrast the Senate is made up of two senators from each state, regardless of population. There is currently a total of 100 senators (two from each of the 50 states), who each serve six-year terms. Approximately one third of the Senate stands for election every two years.

Different powers>>>The House and Senate each have particular exclusive powers. For example, the Senate must approve (give "advice and consent" to) many important Presidential appointments, including cabinet officers, federal judges (including nominees to the Supreme Court), department secretaries (heads of federal executive branch departments), U.S. military and naval officers, and ambassadors to foreign countries. All legislative bills for the purpose of raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives. The approval of both chambers is required to pass any legislation, which then may only become law by being signed by the President (or, if the President vetoes the bill, both houses of Congress then re-pass the bill, but by a two-thirds majority of each chamber, in which case the bill becomes law without the President's signature).

The executive power in the federal government is vested in the President of the United States,[5] although power is often delegated to the Cabinet members and other officials.

The Judiciary explains and applies the laws. This branch does this by hearing and eventually making decisions on various legal cases.Overview of the Federal JudiciaryArticle III section I of the Constitution establishesThe Supreme Court of the United States and authorizes the United States Congress to establish inferior courts as their need shall arise.

Alpheaus · 发表于 2011-10-28 11:03:06

ESSAY3

In its 1903 decision in the case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the United States Supreme Court rejected the efforts of three Native American tribes 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 of a virtually unlimited unilateral power of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) over Native American affairs. But he fails to note the decision's more far-reaching 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 implementation 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 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 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. The Lone Wolf decision ended this era of formal negotiation and finally did away with what had increasingly become the empty formality of obtaining tribal consent.

Alpheaus · 发表于 2011-10-28 11:15:29

全文以the case of Lone Wolf V. Hitchcock为背景，看出几个联邦政府的下属机构对印第安保留地及TREATY的态度。

疑问：在#8中，可看出the federal government 的两次提及，第一次为 totally abandon negotiation and execution of formal written agreements,第二次为continue to negoiate formal tribal agreements. 求助那位CDer有看懂这个两次的做法是不矛盾的？？？读到这里，文字的意思都懂，但文章的逻辑让我混乱了。。。。

开贴--阅读复习--11.29日考试

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()