pp1 - RC - Essay 3
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

减少谈判也是负面结果喔，原本早在1871年国会就废除了印地安土地使用的谈判与条约，但实际上当时联邦政府依然与部落有正式的协商，且需要通过参议院和众议院的批准，所以也就是说，在 L. v. H. 案中终止了（可能是部落提出的诉讼）需要协商取得部落同意，既然如此，联邦政府之后也不需要像以前1871年到1903年之间与部落人正式协商了，对他们来说当然是负面影响。然后另外其实不是“过大的”权利，而是“单边”权力而已，解读成过大权力其中一题可能就会选错XD其实这样讲我觉得也不太对XD 其中一题好像是问干嘛要提到BC，而答案是为了承接之后的论述而提出的，所以只能算是轻踩BC的论点，然后作者接续表达之后的论述这样～