问题：
[单选,材料题] On which of the following did the Justices agree,according to Paragraph4?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
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.
参考解析：
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：根据题干的关键词the Justice 和Paragraph 4, 就可以准确定位在第四段。因为是判断正误题，我们就可以采用排除的方法。通过观察选项，发现B.C都是围绕State, 我们就可以先找关于它的内容。第四段第二句话提到，议会通常想象联邦和州一起实施移民法律，而且明确鼓励州和联邦的官员共享信息以及合作。所以C选项，即州在移民实施方面的合法的作用，是正确答案。
来源：网络整理 免责声明：本文仅限学习分享，如产生版权问题，请联系我们及时删除。
相关文章：
2013年9月29日，中国（上海）自由贸易试验区正式启动运作，3604-20
The legislative provision has a great04-20
I tried very hard to persuade him to04-20
23. Try not to cough more than you can04-20
All of the following might have contri04-20
在当代中国。坚持发展是硬道理的本质要求是坚持科学发04-20
抗日战争结束后，中国共产党为避免内战，实现和平建国，采取04-20
29. The door _____ open, no matter how04-20