評論
打印
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.
周一，最高法院以五對三的投票否決了亞利桑那州移民法案的大部分條款，這對于奧巴馬政府來說是個不大不小的勝利。但在有關憲法這一更重要的問題上，最高法院以八比零的一致表決宣告奧巴馬政府的完敗，該政府妄圖打破聯邦政府與各州之間的權力平衡。
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.
在這起亞利桑那州與美國政府的訴訟案中，亞利桑那州計劃讓州和地方警察執行聯邦移民法規，這一計劃引起了爭議，在該計劃中，有四項條款受到質疑，其中有三項被最高法院多數票裁決為無效。憲法原則是：只有華府（即聯邦政府）有權"制定統一的歸化條例"；而且聯邦法律地位高于州法律，這兩點毋庸置疑。但亞利桑那州很早以前就企圖制定與現有聯邦法律平起平坐的本州政策。
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.
大法官Anthony Kennedy，首席大法官John Roberts 以及自由派大法官一致裁定亞利桑那州無視聯邦政府，自行其是。對于被推翻的三項條款，多數人法官認為國會早已有意涉及該領域，所以亞利桑那州已侵犯聯邦政府的特權。
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.
但是，大法官們表示亞利桑那州警察可以檢查可疑人員的身份。因為國會一直希望在移民問題上，聯邦政府和州政府能聯合執法，并且明確鼓勵州政府官員能與聯邦同事間加強合作，信息共享。
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.
反對否決亞利桑那州的三位大法官中，有兩位，即Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas認同這一憲法邏輯，但對于亞利桑那州移民法中的哪一條款觸犯了聯邦法律這一問題存在分歧。唯一主要異議來自大法官Antonin Scalia，他對州特權給予更加強大的辯護，州特權的歷史法律條文可以追溯到《制止外國人反美及制止煽動言論》這一法案。
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 .
8:0反對奧巴馬總統的原因在于他"對聯邦執行權過于高調的聲明"，正如Samuel Alito在其反對意見中所描寫的那樣。白宮認為亞利桑那州移民法與聯邦政府的執法優先權矛盾，即使州級法律與聯邦法律字字吻合。事實上，白宮宣稱，它可以否決任何雖然合法但不被它認同的州級法律。
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.
有些權力的確只歸聯邦政府，其中包括公民身份和邊界的控制權。但是，如果國會想阻止州利用本州資源對移民身份進行核查，它是能做到的。但它從沒有這么去做。政府實質上宣稱，因為自己不想實現國會的移民愿望，任何州也不允許去實現。每位大法官均大義凜然地否決了這一驚人言論。
