求高人指点！！OG13 Q56－62 关于美国原著居民的一篇RC

angiestar2010

看了很多关于阅读技巧的帖，但感觉貌似没有看到关于美国宪法啊，法律，原著居民这类文章的总结。一做到这类题目就晕过去了，尤其是court这边一个decision，后来一个decision，又和federal government怎么怎么样，就更是一个头大。想请教下有没有高人指点一下这类文章有没有什么技巧去抓住核心内容的～？非常感谢！！

christina1314

这篇文章看不太懂……同求大牛解释！

vianfq

Below is from OG12-RC-chadrer的小安总结, share with you guys, and hope this could help:

Line In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters ?owing through or adjacent to the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty
(5) establishing the reservation . Although this treaty did not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the federal government, when it created the reservation, intended to deal fairly with American Indians by reserving for them the waters without which their
(10) lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can ?nd federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally
(15) withdrawn from federal public lands —i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws—and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land
(20) when establishing the reservation.
Some American Indian tribes have also established water rights through the courts based on their traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to the United States’ acquisition of sovereignty. For
(25) example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when the United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848. Although they at that time became part of the United States, the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in
(30) any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations. This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine. What constitutes an American Indian
(35) reservation is a question of practice, not of legal de?nition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963), wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner
(40) in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine. Therefore, the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water rights as of 1848, the year in which pueblos must be
(45)considered to have become reservations.

文章类型：现象解释型
提出现象---解释现象---解释依据---提出另一相关现象---解释相关现象的法律依据

逻辑结构：
1908年W的最高法院将水权判给了AI，其依据是一个本没有提及水权，但是根据联邦政府的意图说明已将水权赋予AI的协议。后来的一些判决建立这样一个体系：法院可以依据联邦权力在以下三种情况对特殊目的保留水权：1、 待裁决的土地位于联邦全权治下土地的包围之中；2.待裁决土地曾被正式从联邦公共土地中 分离出来，即从在 联邦土地使用法（指导）下可以作私人用途的联邦土地库存中分离出来，并被留出或保留的；3. 有迹象显示当时的政府在建立保留地时有意将水权和土地权一起保留（给当地人）。
其他一些印第安人部落也基于他们历史上调取和使用水源早于美国取得当地主权的事实通过法庭获得了水权。比如RG，他们从未被法律规定为保留地，但是因为是否为保留地是一个实际问题，而非法律问题，因此他们也被认为是保留地，那么根据第三条就被判决拥有水权了。这一实用主义被AC案例所支持，在A案例中最高法院认为各种联邦保留地是以何种方式建立的并不影响W案例规则对其的适用性。因此，从这些村落理应被认定为保留地的1848年起，村落的印第安居民便享有优先于其他公民的水权。

IN2014

同求！！！全错啊！！！

waterliting

二楼解释的太好了！

easymilk

http://forum.chasedream.com/archiver/GMAT_RC/thread-764622-1.html   “印第安水权”文章深度分析
提供了足够背景，非常透彻的解析，正在看，恍然大悟~

cherry乐

http://forum.chasedream.com/archiver/GMAT_RC/thread-764622-1.html   “印第安水权”文章深度分析
提供了足够背景，非常透彻的解析，正在看，恍然大悟~

-- by 会员 easymilk (2012/9/18 21:06:06)

十分感谢~

soho92

这篇文章实在是太绕了。。。。

anmeda117

刚死在这篇文章上。。。来找解析了

cherylchan92

做这篇文章做到快吐了……上来找解药~~~