36. Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because they
- A. disturbed the power balance between different states.
- B. overstepped the authority of federal immigration law.
- C. deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers.
- D. contradicted both the federal and state policies.
答案：B
答案句：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. … On the overturned provisions the majority held Congress had deliberately “occupied the field” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers.
参考译文：在亚利桑那州诉美国案中，多数法官推翻了亚利桑那州有争议的、让州和地方警察执行联邦移民法的计划中四项有争议条款中的三项。 … 宪法原则是，只有华盛顿有权“制定统一的归化规则”，联邦法律优先于州法律，这些原则没有争议。亚利桑那州试图制定与现有联邦政策平行的州政策。 … 对于被推翻的条款，多数法官认为国会故意“占据了该领域”，亚利桑那州因此侵犯了联邦的特权。
定位线索：题干“Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned”对应答案句“overturned three of the four contested provisions”；文中“intruded on the federal’s privileged powers”对应选项B“overstepped the authority of federal immigration law”。
解析：题干问亚利桑那州计划的三项条款被推翻的原因。答案句明确指出，多数法官认为国会已“占据该领域”，亚利桑那州“侵犯了联邦的特权”，即越过了联邦移民法的权限，因此选项B正确。选项A“disturbed the power balance between different states”偷换概念，原文是联邦与州之间的权力平衡，而非州与州之间；选项C“deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers”无中生有，原文未提及剥夺联邦警察权力；选项D“contradicted both the federal and state policies”范围扩大，原文只说与联邦政策冲突，未提及州政策。
37. On which of the following did the Justices agree, according to Paragraph 4?
- A. Congress’s intervention in immigration enforcement.
- B. Federal officers’ duty to withhold immigrants’ information.
- C. States’ legitimate role in immigration enforcement.
- D. States’ independence from federal immigration law.
答案：C
答案句：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.
参考译文：然而，法官们表示，亚利桑那州警察将被允许核实与执法部门接触的人的合法身份。这是因为国会一直设想联邦与州联合执行移民法，并明确鼓励州官员与联邦同事分享信息并合作。
定位线索：题干“Paragraph 4”定位到第4段；文中“Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status”对应选项C“States’ legitimate role in immigration enforcement”；文中“joint federal-state immigration enforcement”进一步支持州在移民执法中的合法角色。
解析：题干问法官们在第4段中同意以下哪项。答案句明确说亚利桑那州警察“将被允许”核实身份，且国会鼓励联邦与州合作，这体现了州在移民执法中的合法角色，因此选项C正确。选项A“Congress’s intervention in immigration enforcement”答非所问，原文强调联合执法而非国会干预；选项B“Federal officers’ duty to withhold immigrants’ information”与原文“share information”相反；选项D“States’ independence from federal immigration law”与原文“joint enforcement”矛盾。
38. It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts
- A. stood in favor of the states.
- B. supported the federal statute.
- C. undermined the states’ interests.
- D. violated the Constitution.
答案：A
答案句：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.
参考译文：唯一的主要反对意见来自大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚，他对州特权进行了更强烈的辩护，这些特权可以追溯到《外侨和煽动叛乱法》。
定位线索：题干“Paragraph 5”和“Alien and Sedition Acts”定位到第5段；文中“defense of state privileges”对应选项A“stood in favor of the states”。
解析：题干要求从第5段推断《外侨和煽动叛乱法》的性质。答案句说斯卡利亚“对州特权进行了更强烈的辩护”，且这些特权“可以追溯到《外侨和煽动叛乱法》”，由此可推断该法案支持州的权利，因此选项A正确。选项B“supported the federal statute”与原文“defense of state privileges”相反；选项C“undermined the states’ interests”与原文“defense”矛盾；选项D“violated the Constitution”无中生有，原文未提及违宪。
39. The White House claims that its power of enforcement
- A. is dependent on the states’ support.
- B. is established by federal statutes.
- C. outweighs that held by the states.
- D. rarely goes against state laws.
答案：C
答案句：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.
参考译文：白宫辩称，亚利桑那州的法律与其执法优先事项相冲突，即使州法律完全符合联邦法规。实际上，白宫声称它可以废除任何它不同意的、原本合法的州法律。
定位线索：题干“The White House claims”对应答案句“The White House argued/claimed”；文中“it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law”对应选项C“outweighs that held by the states”。
解析：题干问白宫对其执法权力的主张。答案句说白宫声称可以废除任何它不同意的州法律，这体现了联邦执法权力高于州权力，因此选项C正确。选项A“is dependent on the states’ support”与原文“invalidate state law”矛盾；选项B“is established by federal statutes”偷换概念，原文强调白宫主张超越法规的权力；选项D“rarely goes against state laws”与原文“conflicted with its enforcement priorities”相反。
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.
答案：D
答案句：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.
参考译文：有些权力确实专属于联邦政府，公民身份和边境的控制就在其中。但如果国会想阻止各州使用自己的资源来检查移民身份，它可以这样做。它从未这样做过。政府实质上是在断言，因为它不想执行国会的移民意愿，所以也不应允许任何州这样做。每位法官都正确地驳回了这一惊人的主张。
定位线索：题干“last paragraph”定位到最后一段；文中“Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim”对应选项D“Justices intended to check the power of the Administration”。
解析：题干问从最后一段能了解到什么。答案句说政府试图阻止各州执行移民法，但法官们“正确地驳回了这一主张”，这表明法官们意在制衡政府的权力，因此选项D正确。选项A“Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress”范围扩大，原文只提到国会可以阻止州行动，但未说通常由国会决定；选项B“The Administration is dominant over immigration issues”与原文“rejected”矛盾；选项C“Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress”无中生有，原文未提及法官与国会的协调。