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, in the case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock the Supreme Court decided that
disputes among Native American tribes over the ownership of tribal lands were beyond the jurisdiction of the Court
Congress had the power to allow outsiders to settle on lands occupied by a Native American tribe without obtaining permission from that tribe
Congress had exceeded its authority in attempting to exercise sole power over Native American affairs
the United States was not legally bound by the provisions of treaties previously concluded with Native American tribes
formal agreements between the federal government and Native American tribes should be treated as ordinary legislation rather than as treaties
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
答案是 B。原文提到,在长狼诉希彻克案中,美国最高法院驳回了三个原住民部落阻止非原住民在其部落土地上定居的努力。因此,这个案件裁决,国会有权允许外人在原住民部落占据的土地上定居,而无需获得该部落的许可,选项B就是正确答案。
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.
双重否定句。 reject 和prevent方向一致,删去。剩下的就是最终结果。
无需印第安人同时,开放土地给“非印第安人”定居
reject sb to do sth,拒绝某人做某事;
而不是拒绝了某人为了去做某事
to prevent...修饰的是the efforts,
即不是“美国最高法院驳回了三个当地美国部落的请求,以防止在没有部落许可的情况下对非印第安人移民开放部落土地.”,而是“美国高等法院拒绝三个部落的请求,这三个部落企图阻止没有部落同意的对非土著人的土地转让”
明白了💩
真的没有人错这道题吗嘤嘤嘤嘤嘤嘤嘤嘤嘤😭
没有。
有的,别担心,弄懂就好
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论