|
Text 4
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
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.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. It
can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts
[A] violated the Constitution.
[B] undermined the states’
interests.
[C] supported the federal statute.
[D] stood in favor of the states.
39. 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.
40. 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 Administration.
[C] Justices wanted to strengthen their coordination with
Congress.
[D] The Administration is dominant over
immigration issues.
16. C 17. A
18. C 19. B 20.C
|