On a five to three vote, the Supreme Cou

资格题库2022-08-02 53

问题 On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday—a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration. But on the more important matter of the Constitution, the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration’s effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.　　In Arizona v. United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona’s controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law. The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial.A.rizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.　　Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the overturned provisions the majority held that Congress had deliberately “occupied the field,” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers.　　However, the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement. That’s because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.　　Two of the three objecting Justices — Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute. The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts.　　The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion of federal executive power.” The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities, even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter. In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with.　　Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could.It never did so. The Administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because they ______.A. overstepped the authority of federal immigration law.B. disturbed the power balance between different states.C. deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers.D. contradicted both the federal and state policies.

选项 A. overstepped the authority of federal immigration law.
B. disturbed the power balance between different states.
C. deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers.
D. contradicted both the federal and state policies.

答案 A

解析细节题。由题干中的Three provisions of Arizona和overturned可定位到第二、三段，从中找到三个规定被推翻(否决)的原因。由第二段第二句可知，华盛顿本身就有“建立统一的自然化规则”的权力，并且联邦法律无可争辩地优先于州法律。由第三段最后一句后半句可知，亚利桑那因此侵犯了联邦政府的特有权力。故A项“超越了联邦政府移民法的权威”是三个规定被推翻的原因，为正确答案。值得注意的是，该题中的同义词互换也可以帮助确定选项，Overstep与intrude同义，authority与power同义。

转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/xueli/2699090.html

本试题收录于：英语一研究生题库研究生入学分类

英语一研究生

研究生入学

相关试题推荐

随机试题

最新回复(0)

On a five to three vote, the Supreme Cou

英语一研究生

研究生入学