请阅读 Passage 2，完成 26~30 小题。

　　Passage 2

　　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 whocome 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 disagree 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 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. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution declares that federal laws are the “supreme Law　of the Land.” Hence, state court laws are inferior so long as the federal law is valid . Given the split jurisdiction　between federal and state sovereignty set up by the Constitution, one major point of contention is the ‘in　pursuance thereof’ phrase in the Supremacy Clause. This means that it is not always possible to make a federal　law in certain areas - that is, certain areas of law are reserved solely for the states to regulate, and any federal　law in that area is unconstitutional. Defining this split of exclusive jurisdiction is the job of the Judicial Branch　via interpretation of the Constitution, and has changed over time. In any case, the Constitution itself retains　supremacy, so even if federal law is forbidden in certain areas, the Constitution itself always is supreme over　any state law. The standards for resolving putative conflicts between federal laws are not always clear, and neither for　that matter is the standard for determining what constitutes a federal law capable of superseding effect. The　technique of setting federal norms of professional conduct on a decentralized basis by borrowing or　incorporating state norms is increasingly trouble- some to the extent that the borrowed state norms are　disuniform and that they are being put to multiple remedial purposes. Federal legislation preempting state law　of professional conduct is conceivable but hardly likely, particularly as the norms are pressed into duty for　purposes other than professional discipline. Pending other steps that might lead to national uniformity, the　answer for the federal courts may be a uniform set of norms directly regulating litigation conduct in all federal　courts. 26. Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because they _____. A. deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers. B. disturbed the power balance between different states. C. overstepped the authority of federal immigration law. D. contradicted both the federal and state policies. 27. On which of the following did the Justices agree, according to Paragraph 4?

　　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. 28. 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

　　29. The White House claims that its power of enforcement _____. A. outweighs that held by the states B. is dependent on the states’ support

　　C. is established by federal statutes D. rarely goes against state laws

　　30. What can be learned from paragraph 7?

　　A. Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress

　　B. Justices intended to check the power of the Administration

　　C. Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress

　　D. The Administration is dominant over immigration issues