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

減少談判也是負面結果喔，原本早在1871年國會就廢除了印地安土地使用的談判與條約，但實際上當時聯邦政府依然與部落有正式的協商，且需要通過參議院和眾議院的批准，所以也就是說，在 L. v. H. 案中終止了（可能是部落提出的訴訟）需要協商取得部落同意，既然如此，聯邦政府之後也不需要像以前1871年到1903年之間與部落人正式協商了，對他們來說當然是負面影響。然後另外其實不是「過大的」權利，而是「單邊」權力而已，解讀成過大權力其中一題可能就會選錯XD其實這樣講我覺得也不太對XD 其中一題好像是問幹嘛要提到BC，而答案是為了承接之後的論述而提出的，所以只能算是輕踩BC的論點，然後作者接續表達之後的論述這樣～