学历考试2022考研专业知识每日一练(07月22日)

1. [多选题]坚持和完善社会主义初级阶段基本经济制度，必须毫不动摇巩固和发展公有制经济，必须毫不动摇鼓励、支持、引导非公有制经济发展^{(non-public economic development)}。这是因为，公有制经济和非公有制经济都是我国

A. 经济社会发展的重要基础
B. 社会主义市场经济的重要组成部分
C. 社会主义经济的重要组成部分
D. 社会主义经济制度的基础^{(foundation of the socialist economic sy)}

2. [多选题]应中国总理李克强的邀请，俄罗斯总理梅德韦杰夫、印度总理辛格和蒙古国总理阿勒坦呼亚格于2013年10月22日开始分别对中国进行正式访问。来自中国三个陆上邻国的领导人，在同一天开启中国之行，这样密集的双边访问在中国外交史上实属罕见。这一外交动向

A. 体现了中国经济发展的吸引力
B. 深化了中国与俄印蒙三国间的盟友关系
C. 反映了中国周边外交行动的延续和加速
D. 顺应了互利共赢的时代潮流

3. [多选题]土地、资本以及科技、知识、信息等生产要素参与价值分配表明

A. 实质是生产要素所有权在经济上的实现
B. 各种非劳动生产^{(labor production)}要素参与了社会财富的创造并且是价值创造的物质条件
C. 各种非劳动生产^{(labor production)}要素是价值的源泉
D. 各种非劳动生产^{(labor production)}要素和劳动力要素共同创造价值

4. [单选题]It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts

根据以下资料，回答下面的题目。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 they

A. violated the Constitution.
B. undermined the states’ interests.
C. supported the federal statute.
D. stood in favor of the states.

5. [单选题]根据以下资料，回答{TSE}题。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. {TS}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.

查看答案&解析 查看所有试题

本文链接：https://www.51bdks.net/show/dj004q.html