阅读理解
Text 4
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 . Arizona 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 the 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 Justice-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 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。
单选题
Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because they
【正确答案】
C
【答案解析】【解析】事实细节题。principles that federal lawsprecede state laws are noncontroversial are noncontroversial。说明联邦法律高于州的法律是无可争辩的。答案选项they“overstepped the authority offederal immigration law。”---他们(亚利桑那州的法案)逾越了联邦法案。就是对文中这句话的反义改写。Overstep 为同义替换原文中的intrude, authority 同义替换了privileged powers。
属于同义置换。
单选题
On which of the following did the Justices agree,according to Paragraph4?
【正确答案】
C
【答案解析】【解析】第四段主要说明了，州警察依然可以核实移民的法律地位。国会设想joint federal-state immigrationenforcement联合实施移民法案。同时，encourages state officers to share information andcooperate with federal colleagues。国会鼓励州警察与联邦同事分享信息以及相互合作。其他选项的 withhold，independence，intervention文中也没有提到。属于过度推断。
单选题
It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】【解析】第五段最后一句：唯一的最主要的反对来自法官Antonino Scalia, 这个法官“defense” 是支持州的权利的，“going back to”可追溯到Alien and Sedition Acts，证明这个法案是支持州的权利的。
单选题
The White House claims that its power of enforcement
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】【解析】第六段The White House 认为亚利桑那州的法律跟白宫的法律实施权利冲突。In effect后面表达的是重点：如果这些州的法律跟它有冲突的话，白宫声明它有权利宣布其它州的法律无效。