A britain france or germany with the unemployment

Info iconThis preview shows pages 10–12. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: A. Britain, France, or Germany, with the unemployment rate having remained B. have those of Britain, France, or Germany, and the unemployment rate remaining C. have Britain, France, and Germany, and the unemployment rate has remained D. the economy of Britain, France, and Germany, with the unemployment rate that has remained E. the economies of Britain, France, and Germany, and the unemployment rate has remained Answer: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Q25 to Q28: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flow- Line ing through or adjacent to the (5) Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the res- ervation. 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 use- less. Later decisions, citing Winters , established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (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(1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands — i.e., withdrawn from (25) the stock of federal lands avail- able for private use under federal land use laws — and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circum- stances reveal the government (30) intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation. Some American Indian tribes have also established water rights (35) through the courts based on their traditional diversion and use of 10 certain waters prior to the United States’ acquisition of sovereignty. 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 exec- utive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from (50) public lands as American Indian reservations. This fact, how- ever, 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. 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. 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....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page10 / 17

A Britain France or Germany with the unemployment rate...

This preview shows document pages 10 - 12. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online