On a five to three vote, the Supreme Cou

练习题库2022-08-02 24

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.What can be learned from the last paragraph?A. Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress.B. The Administration is dominant over immigration issues.C. Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress.D. Justices intended to check the power of the Administration.

选项 A. Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress.
B. The Administration is dominant over immigration issues.
C. Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress.
D. Justices intended to check the power of the Administration.

答案 D

解析推断题。最后一段开头提出：联邦政府确实具有一些独一无二的权力。紧接着的两句指出：如果国会想要阻止各州利用自己的资源来检查移民的法律地位，它是可以做到的。但是事实上，国会从来没有这样做过。下一句是作者对目前现象的诠释：政府实际上在主张，因为它不想执行宪法对移民的要求，那么任何州都不被允许这样做。由最后一句可知，所有法官都拒绝了这个不同寻常的主张，理由非常充分。故D项“法官们意在核查政府的权力(以免政府权力过渡泛滥)”为正确答案。A项、C项与上文的内容不符。B项“政府在移民事务上具有绝对控制权”正是政府想取得的，而法官们拒绝承认的权力。

转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/xueli/2699094.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