2. 考研
  3. On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday — a modest policy victory for th

On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday — a modest policy victory for th

admin2019-11-21  41
问题    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 that 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 Justices — 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 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.
选项
答案 美国最高法院周一以五票赞成、三票反对推翻了亚利桑那州移民法的多项条款，这是奥巴马政府政策的一次温和的胜利。但在更重要的涉及宪法的问题上，该决议以8：0让致力于打破联邦政府和州政府间权力平衡的奥巴马政府失利。 亚利桑那州打算让州警察和地方警察执行联邦移民法，这一直存在争议；在亚利桑那州诉美国政府一案中，法院多数人的意见推翻了该计划中四项有争议条款的三项。宪法规定，只有华盛顿有权“制定统一的入籍条例”，且联邦法律优先于州法律，这些都是无可争议的。亚利桑那州曾试图制定与现行联邦政策并行的州政策。 大法官安东尼-肯尼迪，加上首席大法官约翰-罗伯茨和法院的自由派，裁定该州此举有越俎代庖之嫌，侵犯了联邦政府的权力范围。就被推翻的条款来说，多数意见认为，国会早已有意地“先占(该法规的)领域”。因此亚利桑那州侵犯了联邦政府的特权。 然而，大法官们说，亚利桑那州警方将被允许在执法时验证相关人员的合法身份。这是因为国会一直设想联邦政府与州政府联合执行移民法，并明确鼓励州警察与联邦同事分享信息，相互合作。 三名提出异议的大法官中，塞缪尔-阿利托和克拉伦斯-托马斯二人同意这个宪法的逻辑，但关于亚利桑那州计划中究竟哪些条款与联邦法律相抵触，他们看法不同。唯一主要的异议来自大法官安东宁-斯卡利亚，他援引《外侨法和惩治叛乱法》的事例，为州政府的特权提出了更加强有力的辩护。 法院8：0的否决是由于奥巴马政府的言论，大法官塞缪尔-阿利托在其反对书中将该言论称为“对联邦行政权的令人惊异的言辞”。白宫认为，即使亚利桑那州法律严格遵照联邦法规，该州法律与白宫政府的优先执行权仍有冲突。实际上，白宫声称，它可以宣布任何一项虽合法但不被它认可的州法律无效。 联邦政府确实有一些专有的权力，其中包括对公民身份以及边界的控制。但是，如果国会要阻止各州利用自己的资源来检查移民身份，它可以这样做。但它从来没有这样做过。政府本质上是在坚称：由于它自己不想执行国会有关移民的政策，所以任何州也不应该被允许这样做。每个大法官都公正地拒绝了这一不同寻常的要求。
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/IYuRFFFM
0

考研英语二

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)