تكلم مع الذكاء الاصطناعي
Contemporary Business Law 8th Edition by Henry Cheeseman
النسخة 8الرقم المعياري الدولي: 978-0133578164Contemporary Business Law 8th Edition by Henry Cheeseman
النسخة 8الرقم المعياري الدولي: 978-0133578164 تمرين 2
When the Constitution was ratified by the original colonies in 1788, it delegated to the federal government the exclusive power to regulate commerce with Native American tribes. During the next 100 years, as the colonists migrated westward, the federal government entered into many treaties with Native American nations. One such treaty was with the Ojibwe Indians in 1837, whereby the Ojibwe sold land located in the Minnesota territory to the United States. The treaty provided the following: "The privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering wild rice, upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the territory ceded, is guaranteed to the Indians.". The state of Minnesota was admitted into the Union in 1858.
In 1990, the Mille Lacs Band of the Ojibwe tribe sued the state of Minnesota, seeking declaratory judgment that they retained the hunting, fishing, and gathering rights provided in the 1837 treaty and an injunction to prevent Minnesota from interfering with those rights. The state of Minnesota argued that when Minnesota entered the Union in 1858, those rights were extinguished. Are the hunting, fishing, and gathering rights guaranteed to the Ojibwe in the 1837 treaty still valid and enforceable? Did the state of Minnesota act ethically when it asserted that the Ojibwe's hunting, fishing, and gathering rights no longer were valid? Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians , 526 U.S. 172, 119 S.Ct. 1187, 143 L.Ed.2d 270, Web 1999 U.S. Lexis 2190 (Supreme Court of the United States)
In 1990, the Mille Lacs Band of the Ojibwe tribe sued the state of Minnesota, seeking declaratory judgment that they retained the hunting, fishing, and gathering rights provided in the 1837 treaty and an injunction to prevent Minnesota from interfering with those rights. The state of Minnesota argued that when Minnesota entered the Union in 1858, those rights were extinguished. Are the hunting, fishing, and gathering rights guaranteed to the Ojibwe in the 1837 treaty still valid and enforceable? Did the state of Minnesota act ethically when it asserted that the Ojibwe's hunting, fishing, and gathering rights no longer were valid? Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians , 526 U.S. 172, 119 S.Ct. 1187, 143 L.Ed.2d 270, Web 1999 U.S. Lexis 2190 (Supreme Court of the United States)
التوضيح
موثّق
موثّق
Ethical situation:
The power to regulate the commerce with the tribes of Country A is given to federal government in the year 1788. They entered into many treaties with the tribes living in State M of Country U. The treaty states that the privilege of fishing, hunting, and gathering rice in the lands, lakes, and rivers needs to be given to those people in 1837.
In 1990, the tribes of State M sued State M stating that they are seeking the rights provided to them in the year of 1937 and injunction to prevent State M from interfering with those rights. State M argued that those rights were extinguished in 1958 when they enter into the union.
Determine whether the treaty is valid:
According to Person X, the treaty signed in 1837 is valid and enforceable. The tribes have the extensive right to fishing, hunting, and gathering rice in the lands, lakes, and rivers. By analyzing the historical data, it is clear that the treaty did not mention any period limit for the rights. Thus, State M cannot extinguish the rights of the tribes when they enter into the union.
Determine whether the act of State M is ethical:
The act of State M is unethical. As there is no period limit for the treaty, State M does not have the rights to extinguish the treaty. They ended the rights of the tribes given to them in the treaty. Thus, this is unethical.
Conclusion:
The state has no right in ending the rights of the people, which was signed in the treaty by the federal government. The treaty is one of the most important sources of law in Country U. Thus, it should be followed according to the condition and principles. If there is no time limit mentioned in the treaty, state could not stop it.
The power to regulate the commerce with the tribes of Country A is given to federal government in the year 1788. They entered into many treaties with the tribes living in State M of Country U. The treaty states that the privilege of fishing, hunting, and gathering rice in the lands, lakes, and rivers needs to be given to those people in 1837.
In 1990, the tribes of State M sued State M stating that they are seeking the rights provided to them in the year of 1937 and injunction to prevent State M from interfering with those rights. State M argued that those rights were extinguished in 1958 when they enter into the union.
Determine whether the treaty is valid:
According to Person X, the treaty signed in 1837 is valid and enforceable. The tribes have the extensive right to fishing, hunting, and gathering rice in the lands, lakes, and rivers. By analyzing the historical data, it is clear that the treaty did not mention any period limit for the rights. Thus, State M cannot extinguish the rights of the tribes when they enter into the union.
Determine whether the act of State M is ethical:
The act of State M is unethical. As there is no period limit for the treaty, State M does not have the rights to extinguish the treaty. They ended the rights of the tribes given to them in the treaty. Thus, this is unethical.
Conclusion:
The state has no right in ending the rights of the people, which was signed in the treaty by the federal government. The treaty is one of the most important sources of law in Country U. Thus, it should be followed according to the condition and principles. If there is no time limit mentioned in the treaty, state could not stop it.
Contemporary Business Law 8th Edition by Henry Cheeseman
لماذا لم يعجبك هذا التمرين؟
أخرى 8 أحرف كحد أدنى و 255 حرفاً كحد أقصى
حرف 255
