25_________A. reliefB. lossC. achievementD. justice

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 Acts

A.violated the Constitution.
B.undermined the states’interests.
C.supported the federal statute.
D.stood in favor of the states.

She felt that she had done her good deed for the day.

A:homework
B:act
C:justice
D:model

She felt that she had done her good deed for the day.

A:act
B:homework
C:justice
D:model

FBI men,who do not wear uniforms,have the right to cross State borders if they are pursuing a suspect.They are（ ）to the US Department of Justice,and have their headquarters in Washington,DC.

A.responsible
B.reasonable
C.reliable
D.respectable

Lawyers protesting about cuts don't attract the same level of public support as doctors and nurses.What goes on in the courts is not widely understood,and most people do not expect to neecl a publicly funded lawyer in the way that they rely on hospitals.Nevertheless,access to justice is a fundamental democratic right,and the chaos and failure unfolding across the legal system as the result of cuts should concern everyone who cares about justice.Research carried out by civil servants and published in May after it was leaked shows that the disruptive effect of legal aid cuts in England and Wales has spread from the civil courts to the criminal courts:where increasing numbers of clefendants are appearing without legal advice or representation,as a consequence of changes including new means tests.More than half of juclges questioned for the study voiced concerns about defendants not understanding that a guilty plea could lead to a reducecl sentence.The government knows there is a problem.not least because the王950m reduction in the legal aid bill in 2016,compared with 2010,was more than twice as much as it expected.But ministers have already clelayed far too long in the face of clear evidence that cuts in the family courts have been harmful.Official figures show that the proportion of plaintif{s and defendants with legal representation fell from 60%in 2012 t0 33%in the first quarter of last year,and it is not uncommon for one party in a civil case to be represented by a lawyer while the other is not.Some sensible changes have already been suggested in a review commissioned by the Labour party last year.These include a loosening of the criteria for legal aid eligibility to include all cases involving children,and representation for families in inquests where the state is already funding one party such as the police-which represents an essential rebalancing of justice's scales.The report also made the not unreasonable suggestion that law should be taught in schools.Avoiding costly lawsuits by encouraging people to treat court as a last resort sounds reasonable,and some of the consequences of the cuts were no doubt unintended.But the"simpler"and"more responsive"system promised by the Conservative justice secretary Ken Clarke when embarking on these cost-saving measures in 2010 now looks like wishful thinking at best.The current justice secretary,David Gauke,must act to restore confidence in a damaged system.Legal aid began in the UK in the 1940s with the rest of the welfare state.In the US,a defendant's entittement to a lawyer in a criminal case is enshrined in an amendment to the constitution.While the rules in the UK may lack this constitutional underpinning,people are still entitled to access to justice-including lawyers paid for with legal aid.
In the last paragraph,the author calls on the UK government to

A.improve access to justice.
B.reorganize welfare department.
C.promote lawyers'status.
D.amend the constitution.

The government has been forced into a humiliating overhaul of employment tribunal fees after the supreme court ruled they were inconsistent with access to justice.The highest UK court came clown in favour of the trade union Unison,which argued that fees of up to$1,200 were preventing workers-especially those on lower incomes-from getting justice.Unison's general secretary,Dave Prentis,said it was a major victory for employees."Unprincipled employers no longer have the upper hand,"he said.The general secretary of the Trades Union Congress,Frances O'Grady,said:"This is a massive win for working people.Too many low-paid workers couldn't afford to uphold their rights at work,even when they have faced harassment or have been sacked unfairly.Tribunal fees have been a bonanza for bad bosses,giving them free rein to mistreat staff.Any fees paid so far should be refunded as soon as possible."Prof Nicole Busby,the acting head of the law school at the University of Strathclyde,said it was"a very good day for access to justice".Business leaders expressed concern about the court ruling.Seamus Nevin,head of employment and Skills Policy at the Institute of Directors,said the judgement"opens the door to a rise in unreasonable or malicious claims".He said:"Since fees were introduced,the government has imposed crude and potentially misleading gender pay reporting requirements,and an immigration skills charge that incentivises recruitment based on place of birth.Both of these could lead to an increase in unjustified claims."Mike Spicer,director of Research at the British Chambers of Commerce,said the ruling would leave"employers concerned about a return to the past,when despite winning the majority of cases,companies would often settle to avoid a costly and lengthy process even when their case was strong".Gillian Guy,the chief executive of Citizens Advice,said:"Employment tribunal fees have been a huge barrier to justice,but they are not the only challenge people face.What your rights are,and how to go about getting compensation without resorting to an employment tribunal remains a very complicated picture,which is why we're calling on the government to create a single fair work authority to make it easier for people to get the rights they're entitled to by clamping down on unlawful business practice."Shoaib Khan.a human rights lawyer,said:"The government has wasted precious public funcls on implementing this unlawful,discriminatory regime,and all fees it has received will have to be refunded,at further public cost.A large amount will also have been spent defending this case all the way to the supreme court.If this cruel scheme was meant to be an additional source of revenue for the government,then ir has proved to be counterproductive in every way."Tim Forer,a partner in the employment law team at the national law firm Blake Morgan,said estimates of how much the government owed ranged from 27m t0 31m.He said the praciicalities of how the government planned to refund people"remain to be seen,and it is nor clear how much it witl cost".

Mike Spicer pointed out that

A.employers no longer had an advantage over employees
B.the ruling could bring about an increase in unjustified laims
C.employment tribunal fees prevented many workers on lower incomes from defending their rights in the workplace.
D.out that the apprenticeship levy did not work well and would deter the government from hitting its 2020 apprenticeship target.
E.believed that apprentices were being treated as cheap labour and not getting quality training on the job.
F.indicated that increased levy flexibility was vital for businesses to fund a wider range of training.
G.companies would tend to settle to avoid going to court like they used to do.