单选题 V. (Constitutional Law and Administrative Law) The Constitution empowers and restricts different officials differently. A constitutional claim is a claim that a particular government actor has exceeded a grant of power or transgressed a restriction. But because different government actors are vested with different powers and bound by different restrictions, one cannot determine whether the Constitution has been violated without knowing who has allegedly violated it. The predicates of judicial review inevitably depend upon the subjects of judicial review. Current practice speaks, euphemistically, of challenges to “statutes,” thus obscuring the subjects of constitutional claims. But the Constitution does not prohibit statutes; it prohibits actions—the actions of particular government actors. Thus, every constitutional inquiry should begin with the subject of the constitutional claim. And the first question in any such inquiry should be the who question: who has allegedly violated the Constitution? This Article’s predecessor, The Subjects of the Constitution, demonstrated the analytical power of this seemingly innocuous question. To begin with, the who question reveals constitutional culprits, triggering the essential backstops of constitutional accountability. If the Constitution has been violated, the People must know who has violated it, so that they can know whom to blame, whom to vote against, whom to impeach. But that is not all. The who question also establishes the two basic forms of judicial review. In the typical constitutional case, the legislature will make a law, the executive will execute it, and someone will claim that his constitutional rights have been violated. The first question to ask such a claimant is who has violated the Constitution? The legislature, by making the law? Or the executive, by executing it? This fundamental dichotomy, between judicial review of legislative action and judicial review of executive action, is the organizing dichotomy of constitutional law. It is this dichotomy that the Court has obscured with its anthropomorphic trope that “statutes”—rather than government actors—violate the Constitution. And it is this dichotomy that the Court has been grasping for with its muddled distinction between “facial challenges to statutes” and “as-applied challenges to statutes.” Properly understood, a “facial challenge” is nothing more nor less than a challenge to legislative action, and an “as-applied challenge” is nothing more nor less than a challenge to executive action. Judicial review of legislative action and judicial review of executive action are two fundamentally different enterprises—formally, structurally, temporally different. And these basic differences dictate both the structure and the substance of judicial review.

单选题 Whether the Constitution has been violated can not be decided without knowing who has allegedly violated it because ( )

单选题 The who question relates to the following BUT ( )

单选题 The fundamental dichotomy addressed in paragraph 3 refers to ( )

单选题 In the last paragraph, the underlined word “enterprises” is closest in meaning with ( )