ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
楼主: tianwan
打印 上一主题 下一主题

gwd 3-15

[复制链接]
21#
发表于 2004-10-13 20:59:00 | 只看该作者
XDJM,give me a hand please!

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-10-13 21:09:00编辑过]
22#
发表于 2004-10-13 21:12:00 | 只看该作者

I failed to edit above message. Please disregard my post at 21th floor.

Sorry for inconvenience occured!

23#
发表于 2004-10-18 11:20:00 | 只看该作者

Q15 我也选C

24#
发表于 2004-10-22 15:35:00 | 只看该作者

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”,


這句話的意思應該是: 聯邦政府原本在執行與印地安部落相關的政策時都必須跟印地安部落溝通, 但在Lone wolf case之後, 聯邦政府就不在這麼做了.(不溝通, 也不訂合約)


是這樣解釋沒錯吧


[此贴子已经被作者于2004-10-22 15:37:03编辑过]
25#
发表于 2004-10-24 17:09:00 | 只看该作者

GWD 3-15 again

In its 1903 decision in the case


       of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the United


       States Supreme Court rejected the


Line       efforts of three Native American tribes


  (5)      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


(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


the decision’s more far-reaching


(15)      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 implemen-


(20)      tation 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


(25)      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 nego-


(30)      tiate formal tribal agreements past


the turn of the century, treating these


documents not as treaties with sover


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


era of formal negotiation and finally


did away with what had increasingly


become the empty formality of obtain-


ing tribal consent.


15 According to the passage, which of the following resulted from the Lone Wolf decision?




  • The Supreme Court took on a greater role in Native American affairs.

  • Native American tribes lost their legal standing as sovereign nations in their dealings with the federal government, but their ownership of tribal lands was confirmed.

  • The federal government no longer needed to conclude a formal agreement with a Native American tribe in order to carry out policy decisions that affected the tribe.

  • The federal government began to appropriate tribal lands for distribution to non-Indian settlers.

  • Native American tribes were no longer able to challenge congressional actions by appealing to the Supreme Court.


  • i think C is incorrect, since the text doesn't mention whether the goverment or Congress continue concluding(make) a formal agreement with Natives ,but only refers to "abandoned negotiation and execution of formal written agreements with Indian tribes-line 16"  and "ended this era of formal negotiation and finally did away with what had increasingly become the empty formality of obtain-ing tribal consent.line -35".i believe  their meaning are definitely different.


    and E is correct since, afeter, the case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the Native can't negotiate with goverment or appeal through Supreme court in case they were hurt by the actions of Goverment and Congree.


    just my oppinion. pls leave some ideas.



    26#
    发表于 2004-10-28 07:14:00 | 只看该作者
    LAWYER 一说话就动了我选C 的决心了呢 。。。
    27#
    发表于 2004-11-22 12:47:00 | 只看该作者
    以下是引用bobomomo在2004-10-28 7:14:00的发言:
    LAWYER 一说话就动了我选C 的决心了呢 。。。


    你楼上的不是lwayer吧???呵呵


    28#
    发表于 2004-11-22 12:54:00 | 只看该作者

    还是不大懂这篇文章啊,有哪位能够大体翻译一下,这个月的高频题目呀!

    谢谢

    29#
    发表于 2004-11-23 09:46:00 | 只看该作者
    再顶!请nn相助
    30#
    发表于 2004-11-24 00:15:00 | 只看该作者

    文章意思: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部落同意。



    问题是:该判例导致了下列哪个结果。



    该题CE答案很容易混。而且有点BT,像在做逻辑题。答案应该是E



    E 其实完全来源于原文的properly  emphasizes the Court’s assertion of a virtually unlimited unilateral power of Congress。而且作者作了评价properly。高院在该案件中判决国会在土著事务中有绝对单方面的权利,这成了先例,而且高院是最高的,土著人不能再通过高院challenge国会的决定。故E


    C.从是否必要来讲(注意C是说no longer need),早在1874年两院权力之争就导致了联邦政府不再需要签条约,从实际上讲政府还在签,只是政府不将它当条约,而是当作普通立法。判决只是导致了这种实际做法的结束而不是导致必要性的结束。故C不是答案。

    [此贴子已经被作者于2004-11-24 3:51:40编辑过]
    您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

    Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

    手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-26 13:22
    京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

    ChaseDream 论坛

    © 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

    返回顶部