题目
The restrictive laws that the courts are interpreting are mainly a legacy(遗赠物) of the bank failures of the 1930's. The current high rate of bank failure--higher than at any time since the Great Depression--has made legislators 'afraid to remove the restrictions. While their legislative timidity is understandable, it is also mistaken. One reason so many American banks are getting into trouble is precisely that the old restrictions make it hard for them to build a domestic base large and strong enough to support their activities in today's telecommunicating round-the-clock, around-the-world financial markets.
In trying to escape from these restrictions, banks are taking enormous, and what should be unnecessary, risks. For instance, would a large bank be buying small, failed savings banks at inflated prices if federal law and states regulations permitted that bank to explain instead through the acquisition of financially healthy banks in the region? Of coupe not. The solution is clear. American banks will be sounder when they are not geographically limited.
The house of Representative's banking committee has shown part of the way forward by recommending common-sensible, though limited, legislation for a five-year transition to nationwide banking. This would give regional banks time to group together to form. counterweights to the big moneycenter banks. Without this breathing space the big money-center banks might soon extend across the country to develop. But any such legislation should be regarded as only a way station on the road towards a complete examination of American's suitable banking legislation.
The restrictive banking laws of the 130's are still on the book because______.
A.the bank failures of the 1930's were caused by restrictive courts
B.banking has not changed during the past 50 years
C.legislators believe banking problems similar to those of the Depression still exist today
D.the banking system is too restrictive, but no alternatives have been suggested
第1题
By saying “each meeting was packed”(line4,para6)the author means that_____
A.the Supreme Court was authoritative
B.the BIO was a powerful organization
C.gene patenting was a great concern
D.lawyers were keen to attend conventions
第2题
根据下列材料,请回答 1~20 题:
The ethical judgments of the Supreme Court justices became an important issue recently. The court cannot_____ its legitimacy as guardian of the rule of law______ justices behave like politicians. Yet, in several instances, justices acted in ways that_____ the court’s reputation for being independent and impartial.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito Jr., for example, appeared at political events. That kind of activity makes it less likely that the court’s decisions will be____ as impartial judgments. Part of the problem is that the justices are not _____ by an ethics code. At the very least, the court should make itself_______ to the code of conduct that ______to the rest of the federal judiciary.
This and other cases ______the question of whether there is still a _____ between the court and politics.
The framers of the Constitution envisioned law____ having authority apart from politics. They gave justices permanent positions ____ they would be free to ____those in power and have no need to_____ political support. Our legal system was designed to set law apart from politics precisely because they are so closely _____.
Constitutional law is political because it results from choices rooted in fundamental social ______like liberty and property. When the court deals with social policy decisions, the law it _____is inescapably political — which is why decisions split along ideological lines are so easily _____ as unjust.
The justices must _____doubts about the court’s legitimacy by making themselves _____to the code of conduct. That would make their rulings more likely to be seen as separate from politics and, _____, convincing as law.
第 1 题 请在(1)处填上最佳答案。
A emphasize
B maintain
C modify
D recognize
第3题
The broad language of the amendment strongly suggests that its framers were proposing to write into the Constitution not a laundry list of specific civil rights but a principle of equal citizenship that forbids organized society from treating any individual as a member of an inferior class. Yet for the first eight decades of the amendment's existence, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the amendment betrayed this ideal of equality. In the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, for example, the Court in- vented the "state action" limitation, which asserts that "private" decisions by owners of public accommodations and other commercial businesses to segregate their facilities are insulated from file reach of the Fourteenth Amendment' s guarantee of equal protection under the law. After the Second World War, a judicial climate more hospitable to equal protection claims culminated in the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown V. Broad of Education that racially segregated schools violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
According to this passage, which of the following is correct?
A.By presenting a list of specific rights, framers of the Fourteenth Amendment were attempting to provide a constitutional basis for abroad judicial protection of the principle of equal citizenship.
B.Interpreters of the Fourteenth Amendment have not reached consensus with regard to what its framers meant by the equal protection clause.
C.Not until after the Second World War did the Supreme Court begin to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment in a manner consistent with the principle of equal citizenship that it ex- presses.
D.The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment were aware that the phrase "equal protection of the laws" had broad implications.
第4题
In a rare unanimous ruling, the US Supreme Court has overturned the corruption conviction of a former Virginia governor, Robert McDonnell. But it did so while holding its nose at the ethics of his conduct, which included accepting gifts such as a Rolex watch and a Ferrari automobile from a company seeking access to government.
The high court's decision said the judge in Mr. McDonnell's trial failed to tell a jury that it must look only at his "official acts," or the former governor's decisions on "specific" and "unsettled" issues related to his duties.
Merely helping a gift-giver gain access to other officials, unless done with clear intent to pressure those officials, is not corruption, the justices found.
The court did suggest that accepting favors in return for opening doors is "distasteful" and "nasty." But under anti-bribery laws, proof must be made of concrete benefits, such as approval of a contract or regulation. Simply arranging a meeting, making a phone call, or hosting an event is not an "official act".
The court's ruling is legally sound in defining a kind of favoritism that is not criminal. Elected leaders must be allowed to help supporters deal with bureaucratic problems without fear of prosecution for bribery." The basic compact underlying representative government," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the court," assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act on their concerns."
But the ruling reinforces the need for citizens and their elected representatives, not the courts, to ensure equality of access to government. Officials must not be allowed to play favorites in providing information or in arranging meetings simply because an individual or group provides a campaign donation or a personal gift. This type of integrity requires well-enforced laws in government transparency, such as records of official meetings, rules on lobbying, and information about each elected leader's source of wealth.
Favoritism in official access can fan public perceptions of corruption. But it is not always corruption. Rather officials must avoid double standards, or different types of access for average people and the wealthy. If connections can be bought, a basic premise of democratic society-that all are equal in treatment by government-is undermined. Good governance rests on an understanding of the inherent worth of each individual.
The court's ruling is a step forward in the struggle against both corruption and official favoritism.
1.The undermined sentence (Para.1) most probably shows that the court
A.avoided defining the extent of McDonnell's duties.
B.made no compromise in convicting McDonnell.
C.was contemptuous of McDonnell's conduct.
D.refused to comment on McDonnell's ethics.
2.According to Paragraph 4, an official act is deemed corruptive only if it involves
A.leaking secrets intentionally.
B.sizable gains in the form. of gifts.
C.concrete returns for gift-givers.
D.breaking contracts officially.
3.The court"s ruling is based on the assumption that public officials are
A.justified in addressing the needs of their constituents.
B.qualified to deal independently with bureaucratic issues.
C.allowed to focus on the concerns of their supporters.
D.exempt from conviction on the charge of favoritism.
4.Well-enforced laws in government transparency are needed to
A.awaken the conscience of officials.
B.guarantee fair play in official access.
C.allow for certain kinds of lobbying.
D.inspire hopes in average people.
5.The author"s attitude toward the court"s ruling is
A.sarcastic.
B.tolerant.
C.skeptical.
D.supportive
第5题
A.the Supreme Court
B.the House
C.Congress
D.the Senate
第6题
第7题
() has the power to interpret the constitution.
A、The President
B、The Congress
C、The Supreme Court
D、The House of Representatives
第9题
California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling particularly one that upsets the old assumption that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest. It is hard, the state argues, for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies. The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice. Enough of the implications are discernable, even obvious, so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police, lawyers and defendants.
They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smart phone — a vast storehouse of digital information — is similar to, say, rifling through a suspect’s purse. The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they sift through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant. But exploring one’s smart phone is more like entering his or her home. A smart phone may contain an arrestee’s reading history, financial history, medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence. The development of “cloud computing,” meanwhile, has made that exploration so much the easier.
Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy. But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life. Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.
As so often is the case, stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing. In many cases, it would not be overly onerous for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents. They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe, urgent circumstances, and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while a warrant is pending. The court, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.
But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole. New, disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections. Orin Kerr, a law professor, compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th: The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then; they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.
26. The Supreme Court will work out whether, during an arrest, it is legitimate to
A.prevent suspects from deleting their phone contents.
B.search for suspects’ mobile phones without a warrant.
C.check suspects’ phone contents without being authorized.
D.prohibit suspects from using their mobile phones.
The author’s attitude toward California’s argument is one ofA.disapproval
B.indifference
C.tolerance
D.cautiousness
The author believes that exploring one’s phone contents is comparable toA.principles are hard to be clearly expressed
B.the court is giving police less room for action
C.citizens’ privacy is not effectively protected
D.phones are used to store sensitive information
Orin Kerr’s comparison is quoted to indicate thatA.the Constitution should be implemented flexibly
B.new technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution
C.California’s argument violates principles of the Constitution.
D.principles of the Constitution should never be altered
The author believes that exploring one’s phone contents is comparable toA.getting into one’s residence
B.handling one’s historical records
C.scanning one’s correspondences
D.going through one’s wallet
请帮忙给出每个问题的正确答案和分析,谢谢!
为了保护您的账号安全,请在“赏学吧”公众号进行验证,点击“官网服务”-“账号验证”后输入验证码“”完成验证,验证成功后方可继续查看答案!