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 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’ immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.
1. Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because they ________.
2. On which of the following did the Justices agree, according to Paragraph 4?
3. It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts ________.
4. The White House claims that its power of enforcement ________.
5. What can be learned from the last paragraph?
问题1选项
A.deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers
B.disturbed the power balance between different states
C.overstepped the authority of federal immigration law
D.contradicted both the federal and state policies
问题2选项
A.Federal officers’ duty to withhold immigrants’ information.
B.States’ independence from federal immigration law.
C.States’ legitimate role in immigration enforcement.
D.Congress’ intervention in immigration enforcement.
问题3选项
A.violated the Constitution
B.undermined the states’ interests
C.supported the federal statute
D.stood in favor of the states
问题4选项
A.outweighs that held by the states
B.is dependent on the states’ support
C.is established by federal statutes
D.rarely goes against state laws
问题5选项
A.Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress.
B.Justices intended to check the power of the Administration.
C.Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress.
D.The Administration is dominant over immigration issues.
第1题:C
第2题:C
第3题:D
第4题:A
第5题:B
第1题:
【整体分析】
来源:Wall Street Journal《华尔街日报》于2012年6月27日刊登的文章Raising Arizona—The Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects a White House Power Grab(支持亚利桑那州——最高法院一致反对白宫攫取权力)。
主题:本文主要探讨了最高法院在亚利桑那州移民法案上的决定以及与联邦政府和州政府之间权力平衡有关的宪法问题。文章提到了最高法院以5比3的票数推翻了亚利桑那州移民法的大部分内容,并指出这对奥巴马政府来说是一个政策上的小胜。然而,在宪法问题上,这个决定被认为是对政府试图改变联邦和州之间权力平衡的努力的8比0的失败。文章还提到了各位大法官的不同意见和他们对联邦和州权力的看法。最后,文章指出政府试图否定州法律的主张被所有大法官正确地拒绝了。
结构:
【试题解析】
【选项释义】
Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because they ________. 亚利桑那州计划中的三个条款被推翻,因为它们________。
A. deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers A. 剥夺了联邦警察的宪法权力
B. disturbed the power balance between different states B. 扰乱了不同州之间的权力平衡
C. overstepped the authority of federal immigration law C. 逾越了联邦移民法的权威
D. contradicted both the federal and state policies D. 与联邦和州的政策相抵触
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词Three provisions of Arizona’s plan可以定位到文章第三段最后一句“对于被推翻的条款,多数派认为国会故意‘占据了这个领域’,因此亚利桑那州侵犯了联邦政府的特权(Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers)”,说明亚利桑那州的三个条款被推翻的原因是它们侵犯了联邦政府的特权,因此C选项“逾越了联邦移民法的权威”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“剥夺了联邦警察的宪法权力”,B选项“扰乱了不同州之间的权力平衡”和D选项“与联邦和州的政策相抵触”在文中均没有提及,属于无中生有。
第2题:
【选项释义】
On which of the following did the Justices agree, according to Paragraph 4? 根据第4段,大法官们同意以下哪项内容?
A. Federal officers’ duty to withhold immigrants’ information. A. 联邦官员有责任隐瞒移民的信息。
B. States’ independence from federal immigration law. B. 各州在联邦移民法问题上的独立性。
C. States’ legitimate role in immigration enforcement. C. 各州在移民执法中的合法作用。
D. Congress’ intervention in immigration enforcement. D. 国会对移民执法的干预。
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词Paragraph 4可以定位到文章第四段第一句“然而,大法官们表示,将允许亚利桑那州警方在执法时查验相关人员的合法身份(Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement)”,说明大法官们认为各州在移民执法上是有合法权力的,因此C选项“各州在移民执法中的合法作用。”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“联邦官员有责任隐瞒移民的信息。”和B选项“各州在联邦移民法问题上的独立性。”在文中没有提及,属于无中生有;
D选项“国会对移民执法的干预。”,由Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues(国会一直设想联邦和州政府在移民方面联合执法,并明确鼓励州官员与联邦同事分享信息并合作)可知,国会只是在设想联邦和州政府联合执法,没有真的进行干预,属于过度推断。
第3题:
【选项释义】
It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts ________. 从第5段可以推断出,《客籍法和镇压叛乱法》________。
A. violated the Constitution A. 违反了宪法
B. undermined the states’ interests B. 损害了各州的利益
C. supported the federal statute C. 支持联邦法规
D. stood in favor of the states D. 支持各州的利益
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词Alien and Sedition Acts可以定位到文章第五段第二句“唯一主要反对意见来自安东宁•斯卡利亚大法官,他更坚定地捍卫了州的特权,而这些州级特权可以追溯到《客籍法和镇压叛乱法》(who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts)”,说明《客籍法和镇压叛乱法》是支持州特权的,因此D选项“支持各州的利益”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“违反了宪法”和C选项“支持联邦法规”在文中没有提及,属于无中生有;
B选项“损害了各州的利益”,由who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts(他更坚定地捍卫了州的特权,而这些州级特权可以追溯到《客籍法和镇压叛乱法》)可知,《客籍法和镇压叛乱法》是支持各州利益的,属于反向干扰。
第4题:
【选项释义】
The White House claims that its power of enforcement ________. 白宫声称其执法权________。
A. outweighs that held by the states A. 比各州的执行权重要
B. is dependent on the states’ support B. 有赖于各州的支持
C. is established by federal statutes C. 是由联邦法律规定的
D. rarely goes against state laws D. 很少违背州法律
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词The White House可以定位到文章第六段第二、三句“白宫认为,即使州法律严格遵守联邦法规,亚利桑那州的法律也与联邦的执法优先权相抵触(Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities)。实际上,白宫声称,只要它不同意,它可以让任何合法的州级法律失效(it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with)”,说明白宫认为其执法权高于各州的执法权,因此A选项“比各州的执行权重要”正确。
【干扰项排除】
B选项“有赖于各州的支持”,C选项“是由联邦法律规定的”和D选项“很少违背州法律”在文中均没有提及,属于无中生有。
第5题:
【选项释义】
What can be learned from the last paragraph? 从最后一段话中可以了解到什么?
A. Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress. A. 移民问题通常是由国会决定的。
B. Justices intended to check the power of the Administration. B. 大法官们打算制衡政府的权力。
C. Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress. C. 大法官们希望加强与国会的协调。
D. The Administration is dominant over immigration issues. D. 政府在移民问题上具有主导地位。
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词the last paragraph可以定位到文章最后一段第四、五句“实质上,政府是在宣称,因为它不想执行国会在移民事务上的意愿,所以任何州也不应被允许这样做。每位大法官都公正地拒绝了这一惊人的主张(Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim)”,说明大法官们不支持联邦政府在执法权上的专权行为,因此B选项“大法官们打算制衡政府的权力。”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“移民问题通常是由国会决定的。”,由But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so.(但是,如果国会想要阻止州政府利用自己的资源来核查移民身份,它是可以做到的。)可知,国会没有决定移民问题,属于反向干扰;
C选项“大法官们希望加强与国会的协调。”在文中没有提及,属于无中生有;
D选项“政府在移民问题上具有主导地位。”,由Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.(每位大法官都公正地拒绝了这一惊人的主张。)可知,政府的权力受到了法官的制衡,不具有主导地位,属于反向干扰。
【重点词汇】
immigration /ˌɪmɪˈɡreɪʃən/ n. 移民;移民问题
modest /ˈmɑdɪst/ adj. 适度的;谦虚的
victory /ˈvɪktəri/ n. 胜利;成功
constitution /ˌkɑnstɪˈtuːʃən/ n. 宪法
defeat /dɪˈfit/ n. 失败;挫折
administration /ədˌmɪnɪˈstreɪʃən/ n. 政府;行政机构
federal /ˈfɛdərəl/ adj. 联邦的;中央政府的
uniform /ˈjunɪfɔrm/ adj. 统一的;一致的
naturalization /ˌnætʃərələˈzeɪʃən/ n. 入籍;归化
noncontroversial /ˌnɑnkɑntrəˈvɜrʃəl/ adj. 非争议的;无争议的
intrusion /ɪnˈtruʒən/ n. 侵入;干扰
privilege /ˈprɪvəlɪdʒ/ n. 特权;优待
status /ˈsteɪtəs/ n. 地位;状态
objection /əbˈdʒɛkʃən/ n. 反对;异议
assert /əˈsɜrt/ v. 断言;主张
knock out 淘汰;击倒
balance of power 势力平衡
fly too close to the sun 冒险做某事
occupy the field 占据主导地位
run parallel to 与……平行进行
intrude on 干涉;侵入
【长难句分析】
1. 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.
【结构分析】
【补充分析】
① that引导了两个同位语从句,作The Constitutional principles的同位语,补充说明了宪法原则的内容,即联邦政府独有权力制定统一的归化规则,并且联邦法律优先于州法律。
【参考译文】只有华盛顿有权“制定统一的归化条例”以及联邦法律优先于州法律的宪法原则是没有争议的。
2. 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.
【结构分析】
【补充分析】
① who引导定语从句,修饰Justice Antonin Scalia,提供了有关该法官的额外信息,即该法官提出了更加强有力的对州权益的辩护;
② going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts是现在分词短语作后置定语修饰state privileges,提供了进一步的背景信息,指的是这些州级特权可以追溯到《客籍法和镇压叛乱法》的时期。
【参考译文】唯一主要反对意见来自安东宁•斯卡利亚大法官,他更坚定地捍卫了州的特权,而这些州级特权可以追溯到《客籍法和镇压叛乱法》。
【全文翻译】
在周一的投票中,最高法院以5比3的票数推翻了亚利桑那州的移民法的大部分内容,这对奥巴马政府来说是一个政策上的小胜。但在更重要的宪法问题上,这个决定是对政府试图改变联邦政府和州政府之间权力平衡的努力的8比0的失败。
在“亚利桑那州诉美国联邦政府”一案中,多数派推翻了亚利桑那州有争议的计划中四项条款中的三项,即要求州和地方警察执行联邦移民法。只有华盛顿有权“制定统一的归化条例”以及联邦法律优先于州法律的宪法原则是没有争议的。亚利桑那州试图制定与现有联邦政策平行的州政策。
安东尼•肯尼迪大法官与首席大法官约翰•罗伯茨和法院中的自由派法官联合裁定,亚利桑那州是在挑战联邦政府的权威。对于被推翻的条款,多数派认为国会故意“占据了这个领域”,因此亚利桑那州侵犯了联邦政府的特权。
然而,大法官们表示,将允许亚利桑那州警方在执法时查验相关人员的合法身份。这是因为国会一直设想联邦和州政府在移民方面联合执法,并明确鼓励州官员与联邦同事分享信息并合作。
三名持反对意见的大法官中,有两位(塞缪尔•阿利托和克拉伦斯•托马斯)同意这种宪法逻辑,但对亚利桑那州的哪些规定与联邦法相冲突持不同意见。唯一主要反对意见来自安东宁•斯卡利亚大法官,他更坚定地捍卫了州的特权,而这些州级特权可以追溯到《客籍法和镇压叛乱法》。
对奥巴马总统的8比0反对意见是基于塞缪尔•阿利托大法官在反对意见中所描述的“对联邦行政权力的一次惊人主张”。白宫认为,即使州法律严格遵守联邦法规,亚利桑那州的法律也与联邦的执法优先权相抵触。实际上,白宫声称,只要它不同意,它可以让任何合法的州级法律失效。
有些权力确实完全属于联邦政府,其中包括对公民身份和边界的控制。但是,如果国会想要阻止州政府利用自己的资源来核查移民身份,它是可以做到的。但它从未这样做过。实质上,政府是在宣称,因为它不想执行国会在移民事务上的意愿,所以任何州也不应被允许这样做。每位大法官都公正地拒绝了这一惊人的主张。