prep07阅读 essay3 请求帮助谢谢

Begard · 发表于 2016-9-1 00:17:28

这篇读下来不知道主题讲了个啥，我只对了一题，还是蒙对的，请牛牛给看看！
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.
Question #8. 075-03 (21581-!-item-!-188;#058&000075-03)

According to the passage, the congressional action of 1871 had which of the following effects?

(A) Native American tribal agreements were treated as legislation that had to be passed by both houses of Congress.
(B) The number of formal agreements negotiated between the federal government and Native American tribes decreased.
(C) The procedures for congressional approval and implementation of federal Indian policy were made more precise.
(D) It became more difficult for Congress to exercise unilateral authority over Native American affairs.
(E) The role of Congress in the ratification

我看不懂这个脉络，比如 1903年case出来后，联邦政府取消了谈判，这好像是文章主旨。。但评论家却说早在1871国会就不谈判了，又一个but，作者说联邦政府其实只是走了立法道路而已。。
是这样吗。。。。
哪位大神详细讲解下文章脉络和逻辑关系。。。迷惑ing

咖啡印象 · 发表于 2016-9-1 14:32:48

文章大概的意思是：

在1903年的L. vs. H 案件中，美国高等法院判L败诉。L企图阻止没有征得部落同意的对非土著人的土地转让。在研究该案例时，BC合适的强调了高院对国会（包括众议院和参议院）对土著事务的绝对的单方面的权利的维护。但是他没有注意到该判决的深远意义：该判决后，联邦政府完全放弃作为执行土著事务前提条件的和土著人的正式书面协议的谈判和执行。很多评论家相信这种改变早在1871年就出现，众议院和参议院的权力之争导致国会不再和土著人签条约。但在过去的世纪之交，联邦政府实际上仍然和土著人签协议，并且没有将这些协议当作需要参议院批准的与主权国家的条约，而是简单当作两院通过的立法。该判例结束了正式谈判的时代，最后废除了越来越流于形式的征得部落同意。

Hope it helps~~

Begard · 发表于 2016-9-1 19:25:18

咖啡印象发表于 2016-9-1 14:32
文章大概的意思是：

在1903年的L. vs. H 案件中，美国高等法院判L败诉。L企图阻止没有征得部落同意的对非 ...

谢谢你！！！！

阿霖 · 发表于 2016-9-2 21:50:53

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. （背景） 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. （第一个人的观点） 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. （第一个人观点的局限性并引出作者观点）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.（commentators的观点对作者观点的反驳，我个人认为在这里算是作者写作时候的一个让步？不太确定） 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.（作者对commentators观点的反驳） 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.（总结、结论）

我不是大神，只是来和大家一起讨论一下我的想法，还望指教。

以下是个人对这篇文章的理解：
首句是背景介绍，介绍了L v. H这个案子及最终的判决结果。
第二句，作者对BC这个人的一个asseration做出了肯定。
第三句But转折，指出了BC的研究的局限性：没有注意到该案决定的更深远的影响，并点明了这个深远的影响是什么。
第四句，many commentators的观点，反驳前一句所说的该案的深远影响。
第五句But转折，作者继续反驳commentators的观点。
最后一句总结作者的观点。

prep07阅读 essay3 请求帮助谢谢

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

浏览过的版块