必典考网

What can be learned from the last paragraph?

  • 下载次数:
  • 支持语言:
  • 1274
  • 中文简体
  • 文件类型:
  • 支持平台:
  • pdf文档
  • PC/手机
  • 【名词&注释】

    政权建设(regime construction)、重要内容(important content)、共产党领导(leadership of the cpc)、无产阶级(proletariat)、“三三制”原则、政权机构、民主专政(democratic dictatorship)、工农联盟、“三三制”政权、进步分子

  • [单选题]What can be learned from the last paragraph?

  • 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. 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.

  • 查看答案&解析 查看所有试题
  • 学习资料:
  • [多选题]抗日民主政府在工作人员分配上实行“三三制”原则。即共产党员、非党的左派进步分子和不左不右的中间派各占1/3。这是抗日民主政府在政权建设方面的一个重要内容-对“三三制”政权性质的表述,正确的有
  • A. 是以无产阶级为首的中国各革命阶级联合专政的政权
    B. 是共产党领导的抗日民族统一战线性质的政权
    C. 是一切赞成抗日又赞成民主的人们的政权
    D. 是几个革命阶级联合起来对于汉奸和反动派的民主专政(democratic dictatorship)

  • [单选题]The White House claims that its power of enforcement
  • 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. 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.

  • [单选题]请在第____处填上正确选项。
  • 根据以下资料,回答下面的题目。The social sciences are flourishing.As of 2005,there were almost half a million professional social scientists from all fields in the world, working both inside and outside academia. According to the World Social Science Report 2010,the number of social-science students worldwide has swollen by about 11% every year since 2000.Yet this enormous resource in not contributing enough to today’s global challenges including climate change, security,sustainable development and health.(41)______Humanity has the necessary agro-technological tools to eradicate hunger , from genetically engineered crops to arificial fertilizers . Here , too, the problems are social: the organization and distribution of food, wealth and prosperity.(42)____This is a shame—the community should be grasping the opportunity to raise its influence in the real world. To paraphrase the great social scientist Joseph Schumpeter:there is no radical innovation without creative destruction .Today ,the social sciences are largely focused on disciplinary problems and internal scholarly debates,rather than on topics with external impact.Analyses reveal that the number of papers including the keywords “environmental changed” or “climate change” have increased rapidly since 2004,(43)____ When social scientists do tackle practical issues ,their scope is often local:Belgium is interested mainly in the effects of poverty on Belgium for example .And whether the community’s work contributes much to an overall accumulation of knowledge is doubtful. The problem is not necessarily the amount of available funding (44)____this is an adequate amount so long as it is aimed in the right direction. Social scientists who complain about a lack of funding should not expect more in today’s economic climate.The trick is to direct these funds better.The European Union Framework funding programs have long had a category specifically targeted at social scientists.This year,it was proposed that system be changed:Horizon 2020,a new program to be enacted in 2014,would not have such a category ,This has resulted in protests from social scientists.But the intention is not to neglect social science ; rather ,the complete opposite.(45)____That should createmore collaborative endeavors and help to develop projects aimed directly at solving global problems. 请在第____处填上正确选项。[A] It could be that we are evolving two communities of social scientists:one that is discipline-oriented and publishing in highly specialized journals,and one that is problem-oriented and publishing elsewhere,such as policy briefs.[B] However,the numbers are still small:in 2010,about 1,600 of the100,000 social-sciences papers published globally included one of theseKeywords.[C] the idea is to force social to integrate their work with other categories, including health and demographic change food security, marine research and the bio

  • A. G

  • [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.

  • 本文链接:https://www.51bdks.net/show/o8o95j.html
  • 推荐阅读

    @2019-2025 必典考网 www.51bdks.net 蜀ICP备2021000628号 川公网安备 51012202001360号