正确答案: D

stood in favor of the states.

题目：It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts

解析：考点分析：此题考查考生对文章细节信息的推理引申能力选项分析：根据题干中的关键词Paragraph 5和the Alien and Sedition, 就可以精确定位在第五段第二句话的最后，也就是回归到the Alien and Sedition法案的州特权，所以和法案有关联的就是选项D. 而且我们也不难发现，B和D是一对矛盾选项，通过阅读文章，排除D。

查看原题 查看所有试题

学习资料的答案和解析：

[多选题]作家史铁生在《奶奶的星星》中讲道，奶奶告诉他的故事与通常的说法不同：一般人说，地上死一个人，天上就熄灭了一颗星星；而奶奶说，地上死一个人，天上又多了一个星星，人死了就会升到天空，变成星星给走夜道的人照个亮了。于是他“慢慢相信，每一个活过的人，都能给后人的路途上添些光亮，也许是一颗巨星，也许是一把火炬，也许只是一支含泪的烛光……”这对我们理解个人在社会历史的作用的启示有

历史是无数个人相互作用的合力的结果

每个人对社会发展都有或大或小的作用

解析：AD（历史是无数个人相互作用的合理的结果；每个人对社会法治都有或大或小的作用）

[多选题]钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿是中国领土不可分割的一部分。中国最早发现、命名、利用和管辖钓鱼岛。1895年，请朝在甲午战争中战败，被迫与日本签署不平等的《马关条约》，割让“台湾全岛及所有附属各岛屿”。钓鱼岛等作为台湾“附属岛屿”一并被割让给日本。1941年12月，中国政府正式对日宣战，宣布废除中日之间的一切条约。日本投降后，依据有关国际文件规定，钓鱼岛作为台湾的附属岛屿应与台湾一并归还中国。这些国际文件是

《日本投降书》

《波茨坦公告》

《开罗宣言》

解析：ABC（《日本投降书》；《波茨坦公告》；《开罗宣言》）

[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

outweighs that held by the states.

解析：考点分析：此题考查考生对文章细节信息的把握能力选项分析：根据题干中的关键词the White House, 定位在第六段。最后一句提到白宫声称它能够使任何它不同意的州法律不合法，也就是选项A。