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.
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
The White House claims that its power of enforcement
The White House claims that its power of enforcement
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.
B.is dependent on the states’support.
C.is established by federal statutes.
D.rarely goes against state laws.
参考解析
解析：根据题干power of enforcement定位到第六段。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。而且，在文章的第二段，作者也明确的指出：...that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial，联邦法律应该超越州法律，这是无可争议的。所以，答案应选[A]。
相关考题：
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
（ ） –I think English is __________ math.–Yes, I think so.A．much important thanB．so important asC．as important asD．as more important as
Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its "one-click"online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bil-ski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D．Crouch of the University of Mis-souri School of law. It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski ease involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should "reconsider" its State Street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are "reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court," says Harold C． Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.Which of the following is true of the Bilski case?A.Its ruling complies with the court decisions.B.It involves a very big business transaction.C.It has been dismissed by the Federal Circuit.D.It may change the legal practices in the U.S.
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.On which of the following did the Justices agree,according to Paragraph4?A.Federal officers’duty to withhold immigrants’information.B.States’independence from federal immigration law.C.States’legitimate role in immigration enforcement.D.Congress’s intervention in immigration enforcement.
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.What can be learned from the last paragraph?A.Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress.B.Justices intended to check the power of the Administrstion.C.Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress.D.The Administration is dominant over immigration issues.
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.
Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data?The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling particularly one that upsets the old assumption that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest.It is hard,the state argues,for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice.Enough of the implications are discernable,even obvious,so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police,lawyers and defendants.They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smart phone—a vast storehouse of digital information—is similar to,say,rifling through a suspect’s purse.The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they sift through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant.But exploring one’s smart phone is more like entering his or her home.A smart phone may contain an arrestee’s reading history,financial history,medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence.The development of“cloud computing,”meanwhile,has made that exploration so much the easier.Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy.But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life.Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.As so often is the case,stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing.In many cases,it would not be overly onerous for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents.They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe,urgent circumstances,and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while a warrant is pending.The court,though,may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole.New,disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections.Orin Kerr,a law professor,compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th:The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then;they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.The Supreme Court will work out whether,during an arrest,it is legitimate toA.prevent suspects from deleting their phone contents.B.search for suspects’mobile phones without a warrant.C.check suspects’phone contents without being authorized.D.prohibit suspects from using their mobile phones.
Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data?The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling particularly one that upsets the old assumption that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest.It is hard,the state argues,for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice.Enough of the implications are discernable,even obvious,so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police,lawyers and defendants.They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smart phone—a vast storehouse of digital information—is similar to,say,rifling through a suspect’s purse.The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they sift through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant.But exploring one’s smart phone is more like entering his or her home.A smart phone may contain an arrestee’s reading history,financial history,medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence.The development of“cloud computing,”meanwhile,has made that exploration so much the easier.Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy.But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life.Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.As so often is the case,stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing.In many cases,it would not be overly onerous for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents.They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe,urgent circumstances,and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while a warrant is pending.The court,though,may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole.New,disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections.Orin Kerr,a law professor,compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th:The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then;they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.The author’s attitude toward California’s argument is one ofA.disapproval.B.indifference.C.tolerance.D.cautiousness.
Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data?The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling particularly one that upsets the old assumption that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest.It is hard,the state argues,for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice.Enough of the implications are discernable,even obvious,so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police,lawyers and defendants.They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smart phone—a vast storehouse of digital information—is similar to,say,rifling through a suspect’s purse.The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they sift through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant.But exploring one’s smart phone is more like entering his or her home.A smart phone may contain an arrestee’s reading history,financial history,medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence.The development of“cloud computing,”meanwhile,has made that exploration so much the easier.Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy.But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life.Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.As so often is the case,stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing.In many cases,it would not be overly onerous for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents.They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe,urgent circumstances,and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while a warrant is pending.The court,though,may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole.New,disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections.Orin Kerr,a law professor,compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th:The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then;they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.The author believes that exploring one’s phone contents is comparable toA.principles are hard to be clearly expressed.B.the court is giving police less room for action.C.citizens’privacy is not effectively protected.D.phones are used to store sensitive information.
共用题干The United States is a federal union of 50 states.The capital of national government is in Washington,D.C.The federal constitution sets up the structures of the national government and lists its powers and activities.The constitution gives Congress the authority to make laws which are necessary for the common defense and the good of the nation.It also gives the federal government the power to deal with national and international problems that involve more than one state._________(46)_________(47)The legislative branch makes the laws;the executive branch carries out the laws;and the judicial branch interprets the laws.The President heads the executive branch and the Supreme Court heads the judicial branch.The legislative branch includes both houses of Congress一 the Senate and the House of Representatives._________(48)For example,Congress can pass a law; the President may sign it. Nevertheless,the Supreme Court can declare the law unconstitutional and nullify（取消）it.__________(49)The President and the members of the Congress are elected directly.But the heads of federal departments and Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President. Every citizen votes in secret.__________(50)The people believe that their government should provide a framework of law and order within which they are left free to run their own lives._________（46）A:The election of government takes place every four years.B:The federal government has three branches:the executive,the legislative,and the judicial.C: All the powers that are not given to the federal government by the constitution are the responsibility of the individual states.D:The United States government is based on the principle of federalism,in which power is shared between the federal government and state governments.E:Consequently,no one knows for sure whether his neighbor actually votes for or against a particular candidate.F:The constitution limits the powers of each branch and prevents one branch from gaining too much power.
共用题干How Lawyers Are TrainedThe lawyer is a person with a very special knowledge of the law一both the civil and criminal. Because of this knowledge the lawyer can help people plan their affairs in accordance with law. In other words,_______(46).He prepared agreements and contracts by which one person makes sure that another person will carry out his promises.He gives advice to people on domestic and family relationships and business problems._______(47),although the cases the public usually hears or reads about are those that come to court.The lawyer presents or defends in court claimed violations of rights,or disputes arising out of differences as to what has happened or what is legal and just.The lawyer is not only an advocate of the rights of his client but also an legal practioner sworn to uphold the Constitution and the law.Most lawyers today are generally college-trained men who have completed a course in a law school.Each state has its own rules about training and admission.In law school,students learn how to analyze and present problems for decision.They study the constitution,treaties,court decision,as well as prior ruling and precedents._______(48).In some states,instead of going to a law school,a person may experience a long period of training in a law office_______(49).This method was more popular many years ago when educational facilities were few and the body of law was small.After a person has completed formal law一school training,he must take an examination,which is known as the bar examination,to enable the state to check whether he has learnt the fundamentals of the law. Besides,the applicant must show he is of good character._______(50).The applicant is interviewed,and after his character is approved,he is then licensed to practice law.________（47）A:Most of a lawyer's work is carried out outside the courtroomB:A committee appointed by the court checks home training,college training and past behaviorC:where he learns the various techniques and the basic knowledge that others get in a law schoolD:They take tests to prove their qualifications and willingness to become a lawyerE:he helps people keep out of troubles as well as helping those who are already in troubleF:The reliance on precedents permits us to plan our affairs with certainty because we can be reasonably sure of the results of our acts
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
In the development of a government agency，( ) A.the standard on which the judgment may be made is more important than the actual application of this judgment B.the function of law is important C.the study of ordinance is the most important D.practice is more important than criterion
On which of the following did the Justices agree，according to Paragraph 4？( ) A.Federal officers’duty to withhold immigrants’information B.States’independence from federal immigration law C.States’legitimate role in immigration enforcement D.Congress’s intervention in immigration enforcement
Our factory is much more productive now. This year’s production is five times as much （） it was ten years ago.AwhatBasCthatDthan
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court（）Ahas much greater power than other justices of the Supreme CourtBhas no greater voting power than other justices of the Supreme CourtChas greater say in deciding a caseDhas greater voting power than other justices of the Supreme Court
The federal judicial system consists of （）Aone supreme court,11 courts of appeals and 91 district courtsBone supreme court,11 courts of appeals,89 district courts,3 courts of special jurisdictionCone supreme court,11 courts of appeals,91 district courts,3 courts of special jurisdictionDone supreme court,11 courts of appeals,91 district courts,2 courts for the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
The law-making or the legislative body in the government is （）A、the Supreme CourtB、the CongressC、the CabinetD、the president’s committee
单选题The federal judicial system consists of （）Aone supreme court,11 courts of appeals and 91 district courtsBone supreme court,11 courts of appeals,89 district courts,3 courts of special jurisdictionCone supreme court,11 courts of appeals,91 district courts,3 courts of special jurisdictionDone supreme court,11 courts of appeals,91 district courts,2 courts for the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
单选题The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court（）Ahas much greater power than other justices of the Supreme CourtBhas no greater voting power than other justices of the Supreme CourtChas greater say in deciding a caseDhas greater voting power than other justices of the Supreme Court
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 law-making or the legislative body in the government is （）Athe Supreme CourtBthe CongressCthe CabinetDthe president’s committee
判断题The speaker suggests the immigration policy should allow people from the developed world to travel in and out of the country more freely.A对B错
单选题Our factory is much more productive now. This year’s production is five times as much （） it was ten years ago.AwhatBasCthatDthan