用户中心
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 that Congress had deliberately “occupied the field”and Arizona has 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.
36. Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturnedbecause 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
37. On which of the following did the Justices agree, according to Paragraph 4?
[A] States’ independence from federal immigration law.
[B] Federal officers’ duty to withhold immigrants’ information.
[C] States’ legitimate role in immigration enforcement.
[D] Congress’s intervention in immigration enforcement.
38. It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts _______.
[A] violated the Constitution [B] stood in favor of the states
[C] supported the federal statute [D] undermined the states’ interests
39. The White House claims that its power of enforcement _______.
[A] outweighs that held by the states [B] is established by federal statutes
[C] is dependent on the states’ support [D] rarely goes against state laws
40. 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.
36.【答案】C
【解析】
根据题干定位于第一段When …were in their prime in 1960, only one in ten American government workers belonged to a union; now 36% do. 意思是1960年时，美国政府部门只有1/10的人是工会成员，但是现在比例是36%。所以C选项正确：工会增加了政府部门成员。A选项：Teamster 仍然拥有很多成员。文中只提到了比例，并没有讲具体人数;B：吉米过去是一个公仆。而文中第一句是一个虚拟语气的句子，"如果他还活着的话，他今天可能代表一名公仆"，曲解文意;D：政府改善了与社团的关系。文中并未提及。
37.【答案】D
【解析】
该题很容易根据题干定位于第二段。第二段中有很明显的first, second, third这些词，属于典型的列举处，最容易出细节题。只需要将各选项与这三点仔细比对即可。A 公共部门组织在采取行动时很谨慎文中并示提及，是对"they now dominate left-of-centre politics"这句话设置的干扰项，"左派"为激进派，不可能谨慎;而B错在教育不是需要的，而是公务员社团成员受教育程度普遍偏高，并非必需;C工党长期与公务员社团争斗，该段倒数第二句指出工会与社团一直有联系，最后一句讲到工会领导Miliband荣登宝座正是因为公务员社团的大力支持，因此与原文相悖;D选项为First, they can shut things down without suffering much in the way of consequences.这句话的同义改写。意思是"他们可以息事宁人并不用遭受不好的后果"。
38.【答案】B
【解析】
该题很容易定位于文章的第四段。题干是"国家部门人员的工资状况是"。做这道题要把第四段整体理解。注意But后面的内容，尤其是keeping the pay increases modest but adding to holidays and especially pensions that are already generous。大意是公共部门员工的工资涨幅很小，但是节假日福利津贴很多。B选项的indirectly augment意思是"间接地增加"。和原文意思"公有部门人员的收入是来源于福利等间接收入，而非正常的工资收入"符合。A 通过非法得来文中只提到了国家部门人员的工资比私人企业的要高，整段都未提及来源，故该选项属于过度推理;C 过度地增长文中并未提及增长的幅度，提到只是通过"暗厢操作"的方式，容易使考生产生误解;D 很公正地调整与"backloaded"不符。
39.【答案】C
【解析】
题干的意思是"举威斯康辛社团为例，表明社团_______"。该题根据题干中的专有名词Wisconsin定位于倒数第二段。由题干可知这是一个例证题，所以需要看文章的第五段。第五段首句Reform has been vigorously opposed。从第六段Wisconsin的例子可以看出，工会集合众人反对共和党领导人Scott Walker，正是为了反对改革。所以可以知道工会可能是公共部门改革的一个障碍，C为正确选项。A 经常与当前政治体系对抗文中并未反映often这个程度。B 能够改变人们的政治态度文中并示提及，D 在政府中占统治地位文中第二句讲到社团得到了成千上万人的支持来对付强硬的共和党州长，并不能推出该选项之意。
40.【答案】A
【解析】
文中人物的观点态度题。该题定位于最后一段，第一句话指出John认为西方公共服务中的文化准则适用于想维持原状的人们而对于有比较高成就的人们就不利了，很明显持否定态度，最后再次指出不能造福于高成就人们的公共服务系统对于美国可能是一个更大的麻烦，也再次证实了作者的观点是不支持的即A选项。disapproval"反对"，appreciation"欣赏"，tolerance"宽容"，indifference"冷漠"。
考研英语线上培训班哪个好？当然选【华慧考研】！这里有海量考研真题资料、配套的考研英语辅导书，更有专门的辅导老师一对一辅导，让你研途不再迷茫!点击下方图片链接了解详情，也可联系客服，在线为您答疑~
