2013年英语一阅读第四篇翻译

2013年英语一阅读第四篇翻译

原创

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.

最高法院以5-3的投票结果否决了亚利桑那州移民法规的不少内容——这是奥巴马政府取得的一个微小的胜利。但是奥巴马政府期望打乱联邦政府和州政府的权利分布，对更为重要的宪法进行投票，则以8：0失败。

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.

在亚利桑那州与美国的比拼中，亚利桑那州计划让州和地方政府实施联邦移民法规这一行为充满争议，占大部分的投票人推翻了该计划的四分之三。仅华盛顿州就有权利“建立统一的移入法规”，联邦法规先于州法规，这些宪法的原则是不容争议的。亚利桑那州尝试实施可以与现存的联邦政策效力相等的州政策。

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.

法官Anthony Kennedy与大法官John Robert，最高法院自由党人一起作出裁决，州的权利太接近联邦权利了。在推翻的规定中，大众认为国会故意“占权”，因此亚利桑那州也侵犯了联邦的特权。

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.

然而，法官们说将允许亚利桑那州官员确认那些和法律实施相关的人民的合法地位。那是因为国会总是期待联邦-州共同实施移民法规，明确鼓励州官员共享信息，并且能和联邦同僚合作。

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.

三位持反对态度的法官中的两位法官Samuel Alito和Clarence Thomas，同意宪法的逻辑，但是反对亚利桑那州与联邦法令冲突的法令。法官中仅有的一位反对者是Antonin Scalia法官，他对州特权采取的反抗甚至更为强烈————。

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 .

8-0否决了奥巴马总统的提议显现了法官Samuel Alito在他否决提议时所描述的“一个令人吃惊的主张，主张联邦执行权”的观点。白宫认为即便是州法律与联邦法规完全相一致，亚利桑那州的法规与宪法法规的实施相矛盾。事实上，白宫宣布任何与宪法不一致的合格的州法规都将变得无效。

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.

包括控制公民和边界在内，一些权力确实是专属于联邦政府但是如果过会想阻止各州运用它们自己的资源去核对移民情况，也是有权的，只是从未如此做过。奥巴马政府实际上是认为自己不愿实施国会的移民意志，各州都不能实施。各法官运用他们的权利合法的拒绝了这项不平常的权利。

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/94tw.html