单选题The first state court to rule that gays had a constitutional right to wed was ______.Athe Maryland’s Supreme CourtBthe Massachusetts’ Supreme CourtCthe New Mexico’s Supreme CourtDthe New Jersey’s Supreme Court
单选题
The first state court to rule that gays had a constitutional right to wed was ______.
A
the Maryland’s Supreme Court
B
the Massachusetts’ Supreme Court
C
the New Mexico’s Supreme Court
D
the New Jersey’s Supreme Court
参考解析
解析：
录音中提到“…the Massachusetts’ Supreme Court became the first state court to rule that gays had a constitutional right to wed”，可知第一个宣布同性恋者有权结婚的州法院是马萨诸塞州的最高法院。
录音中提到“…the Massachusetts’ Supreme Court became the first state court to rule that gays had a constitutional right to wed”，可知第一个宣布同性恋者有权结婚的州法院是马萨诸塞州的最高法院。
相关考题：
Ireland had long been dominated by Britain, but Irish desire for an independent Irish state was never lost.In late 19th century, there was a campaign in parliament called “home-rule”- Irish political control of Irish affairs.()此题为判断题(对，错)。
The organization had broken no rule, but ___ had it acted responsibly. A.neitherB.soC.eitherD.both
In my family there is a rule that anybody( ) comes first cooks the dinner for the whole family.A. thatB. whoC. whatD. why
Repeating _____ he had already told the court, the accused maintained that he was at home at the time.A. thatB. whatC. whichD. how
The first rule of camping is to keep a clean camp site, so let’s tidy ______ up.A: themB: herC: itD: him
In the case of Brown versus Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that _____. A. separate educational facilities had been illegalB. educational facilities had been separate but equalC. educational facilities had been equalD. separate educational facilities were inherently unequal
On July 4, 1776, _____ adopted the Declaration of Independence. A.the First Continental CongressB.the Second Continental CongressC.the Third Continental CongressD.the Constitutional Convention
根据下列材料，请回答 1～20 题：The ethical judgments of the Supreme Court justices became an important issue recently. The court cannot_____ its legitimacy as guardian of the rule of law______ justices behave like politicians. Yet, in several instances, justices acted in ways that_____ the court’s reputation for being independent and impartial.Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito Jr., for example, appeared at political events. That kind of activity makes it less likely that the court’s decisions will be____ as impartial judgments. Part of the problem is that the justices are not _____ by an ethics code. At the very least, the court should make itself_______ to the code of conduct that ______to the rest of the federal judiciary.This and other cases ______the question of whether there is still a _____ between the court and politics.The framers of the Constitution envisioned law____ having authority apart from politics. They gave justices permanent positions ____ they would be free to ____those in power and have no need to_____ political support. Our legal system was designed to set law apart from politics precisely because they are so closely _____.Constitutional law is political because it results from choices rooted in fundamental social ______like liberty and property. When the court deals with social policy decisions, the law it _____is inescapably political — which is why decisions split along ideological lines are so easily _____ as unjust.The justices must _____doubts about the court’s legitimacy by making themselves _____to the code of conduct. That would make their rulings more likely to be seen as separate from politics and, _____, convincing as law.第 1 题 请在（1）处填上最佳答案。A emphasizeB maintainC modifyD recognize
A state of emergency had been in force since the emperor was overthrown.A．overtakenB．overrunC．overturnedD．overdrawn
The main feature of(72)is that they follow a first-come/first-served rule. For instance, the line of(73)waiting to be run on a computer system.A．looplinksB．queuesC．stacksD．trees
Mter the Jury Selection and Service Act was passed,（ ）[A] sex discrimination in jury selection was unconstitutional and had to be abolished[B] educational requirements became less rigid in the selection of federal jurors[C] jurors at the state level ought to be representative of the entire community[D] states ought to conform. to the federal court in reforming the jury system
The ethical judgments of the Supreme Court justices have become an important issue recently.The court cannot_1_its legitimacy as guardian of the rule of law_2_justices behave like politicians.Yet,in several instances,justices acted in ways that_3_the court’s reputation for being independent and impartial.Justice Antonin Scalia,for example,appeared at political events.That kind of activity makes it less likely that the court’s decisions will be_4_as impartial judgments.Part of the problem is that the justices are not_5_by an ethics code.At the very least,the court should make itself_6_to the code of conduct that_7_to the rest of the federal judiciary.This and other similar cases_8_the question of whether there is still a_9_between the court and politics.The framers of the Constitution envisioned law_10_having authority apart from politics.They gave justices permanent positions_11_they would be free to_12_those in power and have no need to_13_political support.Our legal system was designed to set law apart from politics precisely because they are so closely_14_.Constitutional law is political because it results from choices rooted in fundamental social_15_like liberty and property.When the court deals with social policy decisions,the law it_16_is inescapably political-which is why decisions split along ideological lines are so easily_17_as unjust.The justices must_18_doubts about the court’s legitimacy by making themselves_19_to the code of conduct.That would make rulings more likely to be seen as separate from politics and,_20_,convincing as law.A.dismissedB.releasedC.rankedD.distorted
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.It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition ActsA.violated the Constitution.B.undermined the states’interests.C.supported the federal statute.D.stood in favor of the states.
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.Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because theyA.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.
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 claimThe White House claims that its power of enforcementA.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.
Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because they( ) 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
The best title for the passage would probably be( ) A.Hard Decisions to Make B.A Constitutional Amendment C.Teenage Pregnancies D.The State of California
Why is Australia.s New South Wales called the premier state?（）ABecause it was the first colony established by Britain in 1788.BBecause it is the biggest state in Australia.CBecause it is the most important state in Australia.DBecause it has the largest population in Australia.
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in（）Aall kinds of casesBtwo kinds of casesCcases involving foreign citizensDcases involving a state
The 1937 Constitution abolished the Irish Free State and established Eire as （）.Aa constitutional monarchyBa parliamentary republicCa federal republicDa socialist country
The 1937 Constitution abolished the Irish Free State and established Eire as （）.A、a constitutional monarchyB、a parliamentary republicC、a federal republicD、a socialist country
The political system of the US is based on the following except （）A、federalismB、the constitutional monarchyC、the separation of powersD、respect for the constitutionE、the rule of law
单选题From the first three paragraphs, we learn that ______.Adoctors used to increase drug dosages to control their patients’ painBit is still illegal for doctors to help the dying end their livesCthe Supreme Court strongly opposes physician-assisted suicideDpatients have no constitutional right to commit suicide
单选题The political system of the US is based on the following except （）AfederalismBthe constitutional monarchyCthe separation of powersDrespect for the constitutionEthe rule of law
单选题The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in（）Aall kinds of casesBtwo kinds of casesCcases involving foreign citizensDcases involving a state
填空题The rule that gold seekers had to carry a year’s supply of goods was enforced by the Canadian Mounties.____
单选题The 1937 Constitution abolished the Irish Free State and established Eire as （）.Aa constitutional monarchyBa parliamentary republicCa federal republicDa socialist country