网友您好， 请在下方输入框内输入要搜索的题目：
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
单选题
The U.S. Congress has the power to make these laws except _____.
A
of defense
B
of citizenship and naturalization
C
of marriage
D
of the regulation of the foreign trade
参考答案
参考解析
解析：
国会是美国最高立法机关；有权宣战、募集、维持和规范陆军、海军和民兵、镇压叛乱和击退侵略；有权制定公民权利立法，创建移民程序；有权规范州际和对外贸易。选项C不符合事实，为正确答案。
国会是美国最高立法机关；有权宣战、募集、维持和规范陆军、海军和民兵、镇压叛乱和击退侵略；有权制定公民权利立法，创建移民程序；有权规范州际和对外贸易。选项C不符合事实，为正确答案。
更多 “单选题The U.S. Congress has the power to make these laws except _____.A of defenseB of citizenship and naturalizationC of marriageD of the regulation of the foreign trade” 相关考题
考题
Congress has criticized new government measures to () crime.
A、contestB、combatC、contactD、struggle
考题
If it were not for the need for power, our whole economy would () because almost all that is bought and sold, except for bare necessities, is for the sake of power.
A.restrainedB.distressedC.crumbleD.tumbled
考题
according to the author, the articles of confederation failed because of the following reasons. which is not true?A. The Congress could not raise money to pay the national army and to pay debts owed to France and other nations.B. The Congress had no power to tax any citizen.C. The new states did not cooperate with the Congress or with each other.D. Some new states wanted to be free from the Union
考题
听力原文：If a U.S. company wants to purchase goods in Britain and the transaction is settled in sterling pounds, it has to exchange dollars for pounds first.(9)A．The U.S. company has to exchange dollars for pounds to make settlement for the goods imported from U.K.B．The U.S. company must exchange some pounds for dollars before the transaction is made.C．The U.S. company may directly purchase goods in Britain in sterling pounds.D．The U.S. company must exchange dollars for euros first.
考题
All of followings should be done by the project manager during project control except ().A.Determine the a change has occurred
B.Ensure that a change is agreed
C.Make sure all changes are approveD.by management
D.Manage changes as they occur
考题
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.
It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition ActsA.violated the Constitution.
B.undermined the states’interests.
C.supported the federal statute.
D.stood in favor of the states.
考题
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.
On which of the following did the Justices agree,according to Paragraph4?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.
考题
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.
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 Administrstion.
C.Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress.
D.The Administration is dominant over immigration issues.
考题
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.
Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because theyA.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.
考题
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
The White House claims that its power of enforcementA.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.
考题
共用题干
The United States is a federal union of 50 states.The capital of national government is in Washington,D.C.The federal constitution sets up the structures of the national government and lists its powers and activities.The constitution gives Congress the authority to make laws which are necessary for the common defense and the good of the nation.It also gives the federal government the power to deal with national and international problems that involve more than one state._________(46)_________(47)The legislative branch makes the laws;the executive branch carries out the laws;and the judicial branch interprets the laws.The President heads the executive branch and the Supreme Court heads the judicial branch.The legislative branch includes both houses of Congress一 the Senate and the House of Representatives._________(48)For example,Congress can pass a law; the President may sign it. Nevertheless,the Supreme Court can declare the law unconstitutional and nullify（取消）it.__________(49)The President and the members of the Congress are elected directly.But the heads of federal departments and Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President. Every citizen votes in secret.__________(50)The people believe that their government should provide a framework of law and order within which they are left free to run their own lives._________（46）A:The election of government takes place every four years.B:The federal government has three branches:the executive,the legislative,and the judicial.C: All the powers that are not given to the federal government by the constitution are the responsibility of the individual states.D:The United States government is based on the principle of federalism,in which power is shared between the federal government and state governments.E:Consequently,no one knows for sure whether his neighbor actually votes for or against a particular candidate.F:The constitution limits the powers of each branch and prevents one branch from gaining too much power.
考题
What can be learned from Paragraph 7？( ) A.Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress
B.Justices intended to check the power of the Administration
C.Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress
D.The Administration is dominant over immigration issues
考题
What can be learned from Paragraph 7？( ) A.Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress.
B.Justices intended to check the power of the Administration.
C.Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress.
D.The Administration is dominant over immigration issues.
考题
The President has asked for budget cuts, and Congress has indicated （） willingness to legislate some of them.AitsBtheirCit’sDhis
考题
The following are the reasons why British coal mining is today called a"sick"industry except（）ABritain has used up almost all coal depositsBthe demand for British coal has declinedCpetroleum,water power,and electric power are replacing coal for many purposesDthe old British mines are narrow and deep,making it difficult to sue machines fro mining.
考题
The President has asked for budget cuts, and Congress has indicated （） willingness to legislate some of them.A、itsB、theirC、it’sD、his
考题
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court（）A、has much greater power than other justices of the Supreme CourtB、has no greater voting power than other justices of the Supreme CourtC、has greater say in deciding a caseD、has greater voting power than other justices of the Supreme Court
考题
If the president wants to put a treaty into effect, he has to get the approval by two thirds of the （）A、SenateB、CabinetC、Congress
考题
（）has the sole right to interpret the Constitution.A、The CabinetB、The Supreme CourtC、PresidentD、Congress
考题
单选题The first Continental Congress, which met it Philadelphia in 1774, was formed of delegates from all the American colonies except Georgia.A
saints B
representativesC
racists D
witnesses
考题
单选题The President has asked for budget cuts, and Congress has indicated （） willingness to legislate some of them.A
itsB
theirC
it’sD
his
考题
单选题According to the United States Constitution, the legislative power is invested in _____.A
the Federal GovernmentB
the Supreme CourtC
the CabinetD
the Congress
考题
单选题The passage implies that the new constitution ______.A
was passed last AugustB
will strengthen the central powerC
will give Congress the power to appoint judgesD
will weaken the Catholicism
考题
单选题The following are the reasons why British coal mining is today called a"sick"industry except（）A
Britain has used up almost all coal depositsB
the demand for British coal has declinedC
petroleum,water power,and electric power are replacing coal for many purposesD
the old British mines are narrow and deep,making it difficult to sue machines fro mining.
热门标签
最新试卷
