GWD-10-Q25 to GWD-10-Q28:(號稱GWD最難的一篇)
版主: shpassion, Traver0818
22 篇文章 • 第 2 頁 (共 2 頁) • 1，2
由 A級垂耳兔 » 2007-01-12 00:19
這篇文章應該給LSAT考...就是在講法律的適用..想到去年考公司法就是這樣...
先來點背景知識..就是有些沒唸書的白痴立委..有時候立法會漏東漏西...比如稅法規定所得稅免稅額每人增加到12萬..年初修法通過但是發現今年五月要報所得稅是否可以適用今年修法的免稅額..如果法律已經明文規定追溯既往..當然就可以適用(今年就是)...但是如果沒說...就有爭議了...
因為法條是死的..每個人解釋不同..所以通常就是有教授會出來幹鼓一下...這是學說見解..法院有法院的判例或判決...有時候會有政府機關的行政命令(解釋函)..這些當然就識時務見解...廢話不多說..
In Winters v. United States
(1908), the Supreme Court held
that the right to use waters flow-
ing through or adjacent to the
(5) Fort Berthold Indian Reservation
was reserved to American Indians
by the treaty establishing the reservation.
在1908年對於Winters v法律(也可能是最高法院的縮寫…猜一下吧)...最高法院有一個見解:水權在FBI保護區是依建立保護區條約為印地安人保留的
Although this treaty did
not mention water rights, the Court
(10) ruled that the federal government,
when it created the reservation,
intended to deal fairly with
American Indians by preserving
for them the waters without which
(15) their lands would have been useless.
雖然條約沒題到水權(就像立委修法忘了考慮一些重要因素)…法院卻判決:當開創保護區時..政府要打算公平的處理..藉由為他們保留水源(我想水在印地安人的想法是和土地息息相關…沒有水土地就等於沒有價值)
Later decisions, citing
Winters, established that courts
can find federal rights to reserve
water for particular purposes if
接下來最高法院裁定:公權力可以去保留水權在特殊的用途下…
(20) (1) the land in question lies within
an enclave under exclusive federal
jurisdiction, (2) the land has been
formally withdrawn from federal
public lands — i.e., withdrawn from
(25) 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
(30) intended to reserve water as well
as land when establishing the
reservation
第一(直接舉例-大英帝國時的香港是位於中國…該條的意思是香港不在政府的管轄權內)
第二:土地已正式從聯邦共和土地中撤出(我想應該是割掉…不是包皮)
第三:當創建保護區時….狀況顯示政府打算保留水權和土地(要給印地安人的…我想這邊就是接下來的重點討論之處)
Some American Indian tribes
have also established water rights
(35) through the courts based on their
traditional diversion and use of
certain waters prior to the United
States’ acquisition of sovereignty.
有些印地安部落早已透過法院(我想traditional diversion可能是那種美國還沒宣示主權前有的法院有判定某些案件..後來新的法院承襲)建立水權
For example, the Rio Grande
(40) 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
(45) never formally constituted a part
of federal public lands; in any
event, no treaty, statute, or executive
order has ever designated
or(在這是AND的意思) withdrawn the pueblos from
(50) public lands as American Indian
reservations.
P部落所在的新墨西哥州早在1848年美國宣示主權前就存在…雖然那時P已成為美國的一部分…但是P的土地從來就沒有正式制定成聯邦共和的土地…
而且也沒有條約..法令或行政命令指示及使P撤離聯邦共和土地上的保護區
(意即P部落狀況似乎在法律的灰色地帶..有可能不適用Winters法…也就是不認為他們有水權)
This fact, however, has not barred application
of the Winters doctrine. What
constitutes an American Indian
(55) reservation is a question of
practice, not of legal definition,
and the pueblos have always
been treated as reservations by
the United States.
但事實上…這並不排除Winters法律的適用….因為這是實務面如何去應用的問題…而不是法條定義問題…P部落一直都在保護區條款適用範圍內(我想應該是第一段的第三條)
This pragmatic
(60) approach is buttressed by Arizona
v. California (1963), wherein the
Supreme Court indicated that the
manner in which any type of federal
reservation is created does not
(65) affect the application to it of the
Winters doctrine.
這種實務方式被Arizona v.法(到這裡我想v.這種東西可能是代表法院判例吧..和法律有類似功能)支持….該處法院指示:任何種類保護區被創造在慣例上是不影響Winters法適用的….
Therefore, the
reserved water rights of Pueblo
Indians have priority over other
citizens’ water rights as of 1848,
(70) the year in which pueblos must
be considered to have become
reservations.
如此.. 從1848年開始就應該被認定為保護區了…因此P部落水權優先於其他公民…
其實就是在說法律是否追溯既往的問題…1908年的Winters v法是否適用在1848年的時候….
這樣子回答接下來的題目應該不是問題了~~~
先來點背景知識..就是有些沒唸書的白痴立委..有時候立法會漏東漏西...比如稅法規定所得稅免稅額每人增加到12萬..年初修法通過但是發現今年五月要報所得稅是否可以適用今年修法的免稅額..如果法律已經明文規定追溯既往..當然就可以適用(今年就是)...但是如果沒說...就有爭議了...
因為法條是死的..每個人解釋不同..所以通常就是有教授會出來幹鼓一下...這是學說見解..法院有法院的判例或判決...有時候會有政府機關的行政命令(解釋函)..這些當然就識時務見解...廢話不多說..
In Winters v. United States
(1908), the Supreme Court held
that the right to use waters flow-
ing through or adjacent to the
(5) Fort Berthold Indian Reservation
was reserved to American Indians
by the treaty establishing the reservation.
在1908年對於Winters v法律(也可能是最高法院的縮寫…猜一下吧)...最高法院有一個見解:水權在FBI保護區是依建立保護區條約為印地安人保留的
Although this treaty did
not mention water rights, the Court
(10) ruled that the federal government,
when it created the reservation,
intended to deal fairly with
American Indians by preserving
for them the waters without which
(15) their lands would have been useless.
雖然條約沒題到水權(就像立委修法忘了考慮一些重要因素)…法院卻判決:當開創保護區時..政府要打算公平的處理..藉由為他們保留水源(我想水在印地安人的想法是和土地息息相關…沒有水土地就等於沒有價值)
Later decisions, citing
Winters, established that courts
can find federal rights to reserve
water for particular purposes if
接下來最高法院裁定:公權力可以去保留水權在特殊的用途下…
(20) (1) the land in question lies within
an enclave under exclusive federal
jurisdiction, (2) the land has been
formally withdrawn from federal
public lands — i.e., withdrawn from
(25) 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
(30) intended to reserve water as well
as land when establishing the
reservation
第一(直接舉例-大英帝國時的香港是位於中國…該條的意思是香港不在政府的管轄權內)
第二:土地已正式從聯邦共和土地中撤出(我想應該是割掉…不是包皮)
第三:當創建保護區時….狀況顯示政府打算保留水權和土地(要給印地安人的…我想這邊就是接下來的重點討論之處)
Some American Indian tribes
have also established water rights
(35) through the courts based on their
traditional diversion and use of
certain waters prior to the United
States’ acquisition of sovereignty.
有些印地安部落早已透過法院(我想traditional diversion可能是那種美國還沒宣示主權前有的法院有判定某些案件..後來新的法院承襲)建立水權
For example, the Rio Grande
(40) 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
(45) never formally constituted a part
of federal public lands; in any
event, no treaty, statute, or executive
order has ever designated
or(在這是AND的意思) withdrawn the pueblos from
(50) public lands as American Indian
reservations.
P部落所在的新墨西哥州早在1848年美國宣示主權前就存在…雖然那時P已成為美國的一部分…但是P的土地從來就沒有正式制定成聯邦共和的土地…
而且也沒有條約..法令或行政命令指示及使P撤離聯邦共和土地上的保護區
(意即P部落狀況似乎在法律的灰色地帶..有可能不適用Winters法…也就是不認為他們有水權)
This fact, however, has not barred application
of the Winters doctrine. What
constitutes an American Indian
(55) reservation is a question of
practice, not of legal definition,
and the pueblos have always
been treated as reservations by
the United States.
但事實上…這並不排除Winters法律的適用….因為這是實務面如何去應用的問題…而不是法條定義問題…P部落一直都在保護區條款適用範圍內(我想應該是第一段的第三條)
This pragmatic
(60) approach is buttressed by Arizona
v. California (1963), wherein the
Supreme Court indicated that the
manner in which any type of federal
reservation is created does not
(65) affect the application to it of the
Winters doctrine.
這種實務方式被Arizona v.法(到這裡我想v.這種東西可能是代表法院判例吧..和法律有類似功能)支持….該處法院指示:任何種類保護區被創造在慣例上是不影響Winters法適用的….
Therefore, the
reserved water rights of Pueblo
Indians have priority over other
citizens’ water rights as of 1848,
(70) the year in which pueblos must
be considered to have become
reservations.
如此.. 從1848年開始就應該被認定為保護區了…因此P部落水權優先於其他公民…
其實就是在說法律是否追溯既往的問題…1908年的Winters v法是否適用在1848年的時候….
這樣子回答接下來的題目應該不是問題了~~~
-
A級垂耳兔 - 高級會員
- 文章: 451
- 註冊時間: 2006-09-04 17:47
- 來自: 台北市
由 craigchsieh » 2008-07-20 23:36
A級垂耳兔 \$m[1]:
有些印地安部落早已透過法院(我想traditional diversion可能是那種美國還沒宣示主權前有的法院有判定某些案件..後來新的法院承襲)建立水權
P部落所在的新墨西哥州早在1848年美國宣示主權前就存在…雖然那時P已成為美國的一部分…但是P的土地從來就沒有正式制定成聯邦共和的土地…
而且也沒有條約..法令或行政命令指示及使P撤離聯邦共和土地上的保護區
(意即P部落狀況似乎在法律的灰色地帶..有可能不適用Winters法…也就是不認為他們有水權)
但事實上…這並不排除Winters法律的適用….因為這是實務面如何去應用的問題…而不是法條定義問題…P部落一直都在保護區條款適用範圍內(我想應該是第一段的第三條)
這種實務方式被Arizona v.法(到這裡我想v.這種東西可能是代表法院判例吧..和法律有類似功能)支持….該處法院指示:任何種類保護區被創造在慣例上是不影響Winters法適用的….
Therefore, the
reserved water rights of Pueblo
Indians have priority over other
citizens’ water rights as of 1848,
(70) the year in which pueblos must
be considered to have become
reservations.
如此.. 從1848年開始就應該被認定為保護區了…因此P部落水權優先於其他公民…
其實就是在說法律是否追溯既往的問題…1908年的Winters v法是否適用在1848年的時候….
這樣子回答接下來的題目應該不是問題了~~~
精彩啊～
能解釋到這個地步，令人印象深刻，久久揮之不去...
- craigchsieh
- 中級會員
- 文章: 96
- 註冊時間: 2007-11-29 13:23
22 篇文章 • 第 2 頁 (共 2 頁) • 1，2
回到 GMAT Reading Comprehension 考區
誰在線上
正在瀏覽這個版面的使用者：沒有註冊會員 和 25 位訪客
Copyright © 2006-2009 FormosaMBA.com. All Rights Reserved.
