扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / Prep2007E1-RC-8
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.
According to the passage, the congressional action of 1871 had which of the following effects?
Native American tribal agreements were treated as legislation that had to be passed by both houses of Congress.
The number of formal agreements negotiated between the federal government and Native American tribes decreased.
The procedures for congressional approval and implementation of federal Indian policy were made more precise.
It became more difficult for Congress to exercise unilateral authority over Native American affairs.
The role of Congress in the ratification of treaties with sovereign nations was eventually undermined.
题目分析：
题目释义：
细节题目
考点：
支持主题（Supporting ideas）
旨在考察我们对文章细节的认知。
这道题的定位相对简单，主要是有关键词“1871”。应该定位在“1871”以后至“The Lone Wolf decision”之前。这个题目如果对于“Federal Government”和“Congress”之间的关系十分不了解的话，定位部分还是比较难以看明白的，在下面的补充提示之中做了尽可能简洁的介绍，某些美国的常识还是需要了解的。
这里啰嗦一些吧，意义一下定位的那句话，就是说，在1871年，国会是已经不在和土著签订什么协议了，但是联邦政府并没有完全的放弃与土著的协商，这是因为国会是立法机关，那么联邦政府就把所谓的协议当做法令来让国会通过，这是并不需要参议院的批准。这样，参议院和众议院也没必要争谁在印第安事物上有主要权力，必须想法令一样通过他们两个共同的通过。
选项分析：
A选项：Correct。与美国土著人的协议被当做一些必须被两个议院都通过的法令。这个选项几乎是原句“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. ”的重复。这也就解释了为什么国会不在与土著签订条约，但是与土著的协议还是继续不断地有的原因。
B选项：联邦政府与美国土著签订的协议减少了。我们无从得知联邦政府与土著协议的签订在1871年时是否受到很大的影响，文中只提到了联邦政府和土著继续联系着。
C选项：国会的批准过程和联邦印第安政策的贯彻过程变得更加清晰了。这个选项的关键词出现在这句话中“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. ”首先这个出现在1903年以后，而非1871年。其次，仔细看这句话说的是不把联邦印第安政策的贯彻视为先决条件了，和其是否变得更加精确无关。
D选项：国会实行在土著这一事件上实现单边权力变得更加困难了。这个其实考点中也提到了，其实这个选项是贴边的，不过在1871年，国会是没有对土著事件的权力的，因为这个事件已经被当做了法令。
E选项： 国会在与主权国家签订条约的批准权力方面最终是被削弱了。这个选项较易误选。在1871年以后其实国会对于条约的批准权是没有改变的，只是联邦政府“钻”了空子，走的是立法的道路，所以就谈不上削弱了。
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”.
把这些documents作为必须由两院都通过的法令
E选项，国会在treaties with sovereign nations的角色并没有被削弱，只不过是联邦政府把这件事不作为treaties with sovereign nations，而是作为legislation了
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论