试题库在线考试题库-历年真题模拟试题及答案-考博英语在线试题测试中心-希赛网

题库

首页 > 题库 > 华东政法大学

2. Translate the following paragraph into English (5 marks) 英国食品安全机构本周日称，一年前，3个欧盟国家已经得到关于马肉问题的通知。这些通知于2012年2月1日、15日和3月7日发出，通知特别指出了丹麦、匈牙利和意大利应当调查关于马肉的问题。它还在欧盟的食品和饲料快速警告系统中发布。

1. Translate the following paragraph into Chinese (5 marks) It’s another bad-air day in Beijing. You can barely see. You can barely breathe. But you can feel — and even taste — the grit floating in the air. The World Health Organization has set healthy level of Air Quality Index at 25 micrograms, while Beijing considers a 300 reading as “Bad” and 500 as “Hazardous.” Last weekend, however, it breached 700! “I’m getting itchy,” complained my daughter Michelle, visiting us from New York. “I could feel it at the back of my throat.” Longtime expatriate residents in the Chinese capital jokingly call it the “Beijing tickle (痒痒)”, a nagging cough that takes a long time to shrug off.

X. Intellectual PropertiesUnited States joined the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in 1989. In its initial implementation act, Congress awarded no protection to works that had fallen in the public domain in the United States.This was challenged as a violation of the Convention provision on retroactive protection of such works. Congress reversed course when it implemented the Uruguay Round results because it knew its failure to implement Article 18 could now be challenged before WTO Dispute Settlement Body. It thus reimplemented the Convention by providing extensive protection to copyright holders and restoring works that had been in the public domain, while providing limited rights to “reliance parties” that had been exploiting those works legally without payment or authorization. This is, at its core, the basis of the challenge that has reached the Supreme Court in Golan v. Holder — namely, that restoring protection on public domain works violates the constitutional rights of those reliance parties.When joining the Beme Convention, the United States adhered to its most recent version, the 1971 Paris Act. Article 18 of the Paris Act addresses how member states should implement the Convention at their time of entry. Article 18(1) provides that: “This Convention shall apply to all works which, at the moment of its coming into force, have not yet fallen into the public domain in the country of origin through the expiry of the term of protection.” Article 18(2) goes on to clarify that “[i]f, however, through the expiry of the term of protection which was previously granted, a work has fallen into the public domain of the country where protection is claimed, that work shall not be protected anew.” Proponents of a restrictive reading of these provisions tend to emphasize the “shall” in Article 18(1), but not the “shall not” in Article 18(2). But the Convention clearly establishes the principle of protection of existing works in some instances only while also preserving most of the public domain. Taken together, Articles 18(1) and 18(2) provide that a work already in the public domain must be protected anew — that is, removed from the public domain and placed (back) in the exclusive domain of the foreign copyright holder(s) — only in the specific circumstance where: (1) that work both remains protected in its country of origin, and (2) it is not protected in the country where protection is claimed for a reason other than the expiration of a term of protection previously granted (e.g., for failure to comply with a registration requirement).87. According to the 2nd paragraph, a work published in 1971 and protected in Japan, which was not protected in the US before the establishment of WTO, is _ in the US in 2012.88. The underlined phrase “reliance parties” means those who _.89. According to Article 18 of the Berne Convention, a work already in the public domain must be protected anew when a work remains protected in its country of origin _ it is not protected in the country where protection is claimed for a reason other than the expiration of a term of protection.90. From the paragraphs, one can imagine that in the Supreme Court case Golan v. Holder, the following is challenged except _.

Ⅲ. Constitutional and Administrative LawRobert Post notes that three interests have traditionally been advanced to justify campaign finance reform: equality, anti-distortion, and the elimination of corruption. Each of these three interests is fundamental within a system of representative government. Each constituent is entitled to equal influence in the selection of her representative; election results should transparently represent, without distortion, the views of the people; and elected representatives should perform their appropriate roles, without corruption.None of these three interests, however, makes sense within the discursive democracy established and protected by First Amendment rights. In discursive democracy, as distinct from direct democracy, public opinion is always evolving; it does not make decisions with respect to which citizens can exercise an equal influence. In discursive democracy, public opinion is never represented, so that there is no baseline from which distortions can be measured. And the state’s interest in preserving the role morality of representatives from corruption can at most count as a constitutional interest to be weighed against First Amendment interests in preserving the integrity of self-government through discursive democracy. It is no wonder that the constitutional jurisprudence of campaign finance reform has been a muddle since the days of Buckley v. Valeo.Citizens United concludes that neither equality, nor distortion, nor eliminating corruption, can count as constitutionally compelling interests capable of justifying legislation prohibiting corporations from making independent campaign expenditures directly from their corporate treasuries. But in leaping to this conclusion, Citizens United fails to engage in a sufficiently deep analysis of relevant First Amendment rights. First Amendment rights protect freedom of speech in order to preserve the possibility of self-government. The First Amendment assumes that persons should be free to influence the content of public opinion and that the government will be responsive to public opinion. We assume that elections will ensure that government is responsive to public opinion. If elections do not select for representatives who are attentive to public opinion, however, the link between First Amendment rights and the value of self-government will disappear. If we denominate the capacity of elections to select representatives who are responsive to public opinion as electoral integrity, legislation aiming to preserve electoral integrity serves a compelling constitutional interest for purposes of First Amendment analysis. Citizens United failed to ask whether the campaign finance legislation it was considering served the purpose of maintaining electoral integrity.1.Which of the following is NOT an interest to justify campaign finance reform, according to Robot Post?2.What is the major difference between discursive democracy and direct democracy?3.What causes the link between First Amendment rights and the value of self-government to disappear?4.What was the major failure of Citizens United according to the author?

II. Legal HistoryThere is a largely forgotten story to be told of U.S. legal imperialism in China, despite China’s location far outside of America’s territorial borders. The story’s protagonist is a rather arcane sounding legal doctrine, extraterritorial jurisdiction. Exclusive territorial jurisdiction is one of the defining features of the sovereignty of the modern nation-state. With limited exceptions, it is where a person is that determines what law applies to him or her. However, when a state asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction, it claims the right to apply its laws beyond the borders of its territory.To anticipate the story, the extraordinary treaty that laid the foundation for American extraterritoriality was negotiated by Caleb Cushing, the first American minister to China as well as a Massachusetts congressman, a lawyer, and a future attorney general of the United States. Cushing was charged by President John Tyler with the pre-textual mission of going to Peking to inquire after the emperor’s health and to carry out the president’s wishes for his longevity. Backed by his own little armada as well as the presence of the U.S. naval forces in the Pacific, Cushing persuaded the Qing Empire to enter into a Treaty of Peace, Amity, and Commerce with the United States. The treaty was signed on July 3, 1844, in the village of Wanghia in Macao. Under its terms, China was obligated to allow Americans to trade freely in Canton as well as in four other previously closed ports. Moreover, Americans obtained the right of extraterritorial jurisdiction in China. From 1844 until 1943, U.S. citizens in China were formally subject only to the laws of the United States. Stated differently, when Americans entered China, American law traveled with them, effectively attaching to their very bodies.How did the relatively recently emancipated world’s leading anti-colonial power reconcile its extraterritorial jurisdiction in China with Chief Justice Marshall’s ringing statement in 1812, “The jurisdiction of a nation within its territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute…being alike the attribute of every sovereign and incapable of conferring extraterritorial power”? It turns out that the forgotten century of American extraterritorial jurisdiction in China is a story not only about China and the United States but also of international law. This essay is thus also a story about law’s operation transnationally, and a case study of how law dynamically both constitutes and deconstitutes sovereigns at both national and international levels.1. Which one of the following is extraterritorial jurisdiction according to the author?2.Which description about Caleb Cushing is NOT true according to the second paragraph?3.What is NOT included in the 1844 Sino-America bilateral treaty?4.The contradiction between the American extraterritoriality and Justice Marshall’s statement in 1812 can be reconciled when ___.

IX. Forensic AppraisalAs a categorical matter, the science of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) can no longer support a finding of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in triad-only (三联征) cases — cases which represent a significant number of SBS prosecutions. Put simply, here change has raised the real possibility of past error.In the past, the mere presence of retinal hemorrhaging, (视网膜出血) subdural hematoma (硬膜下血肿), and cerebral edema (脑水肿) was taken to mean that a baby had been shaken hard enough to produce what were conceptualized as whiplash forces. According to the conventional understanding of SBS, the application of rotational acceleration and deceleration forces to the infant’s head causes the brain to rotate in the skull. Abrupt deceleration allows continuing brain rotation until bridging veins are stretched and ruptured, causing a thin layer of subdural haemorrhage on the surface of the brain. Retinal hemorrhages were thought to result from a similar causal mechanism. Most significantly, the triad of symptoms was believed to be distinctly characteristic of violent shaking.Despite its lingering presence in the popular imagination, the scientific underpinnings of SBS have crumbled over the past decade as the medical establishment has deliberately discarded a diagnosis defined by shaking. Although no single nomenclature has emerged in its place, doctors are now in widespread agreement that SBS is an unhelpful characterization, and that the presence of retinal hemorrhages and subdural hematoma cannot conclusively prove that injury was inflicted.Although it may be tempting to conclude simply that science evolves, and leave the inquiry there, the story is more complex; an object lesson in scientific overreaching and the challenge of correction.A number of forces coalesced to transform SBS from a certain diagnosis into its current state of flux. Most importantly, in the mid- to late-1990s, medical research, including the SBS literature, became subject to a heightened level of scrutiny. The new evidence-based medicine standards required doctors to derive their research from methods that are scientific and statistically rigorous. The change triggered a review of the evidence supporting a number of areas of medicine, and included a comprehensive effort to examine the science underlying SBS.The application of the evidence-based framework to the SBS literature resulted in a remarkable determination: the medical literature published prior to 1998 contained inadequate scientific evidence to come to a firm conclusion on most aspects of causation, diagnosis, treatment, or any other matters pertaining to SBS.83. One learns from the paragraphs that SBS is _.84. The presence of the following syndromes makes the doctors believe that a baby was shaken hard, except _.85. According to the last paragraph, the following statement is NOT correct _.86. One can foresee that after the recent research result based on evidence, _.

VIII. International LawBefore the first substantive meeting, the Panel received an unsolicited amicus curiae brief from Humane Society International and American University’s Washington College of Law, accompanied by a letter dated 6 May 2010.At the first substantive meeting, the United States requested the Panel to review and consider the submission in its deliberations, in light of the relevant and useful information it contained which it believed could assist the Panel in understanding the issues in this dispute. In addition, in its responses to the Panel’s questions, the United States referred to some of the information contained in the amicus curiae brief in support of its arguments. Mexico did not comment on the filing of the amicus curiae brief or on its content at the first substantive meeting.The Panel subsequently invited both parties to comment on certain information presented as an exhibit to the amicus curiae brief. In its response, Mexico observed that factual information submitted through an amicus curiae brief could not be properly treated as part of the record of this dispute. The United States responded that, although a panel is not required to consider information submitted by amici, it may consider such information as it sees fit. In particular, the United States noted that the Chairman of the Panel had invited the parties and third parties in this dispute to offer views in relation to the amicus curiae brief filed.The Panel informed the parties prior to the first meeting that: “Taking into account the determinations of the Appellate Body in US-Shrimp (WT/DS58/AB/R), the Panel considers that it has the discretionary authority either to accept and consider or to reject information and advice submitted to it, and it will accordingly treat this brief as it deems appropriate.”The Panel therefore considers that it has the authority to consider the information contained in the amicus curiae brief, and has done so to the extent that it deemed it relevant to the examination of the claim before it. Where the Panel considered the information presented in and the evidence attached to the amicus curiae brief relevant, it has sought the views of the parties in accordance with the requirements of due process. In addition, to the extent that one of the parties has cited the amicus curiae brief or cross-referenced to the exhibits presented with such brief in its reasoning or responses to questions, these elements form part of the submissions of that party in these proceedings and the Panel deems appropriate refer to such information in its findings.79. In the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph, there are 3 “it (its)” (underlined), these words, according to the context, represent the following in order respectively.80. Which of the following statement is NOT true?81. It can be inferred from the 4th paragraph that _.82. The Panel would deal with the amicus curiae brief in the following way except _.

VII. Economic LawInside information in the U.S. is “material nonpublic information”. The problem is, all information to some extent is non-public. All information is at once material to some investors to a certain extent but irrelevant to other investors to a certain extent.Federal legislation does not define inside information. Definitions have arisen through controversial case law. However, inside information can never be completely defined because all information is, to varying degrees, nonpublic. Unlike ECMH, a realistic assumption is that most information is unknown and often unknowable as well. For example, most people do not know generally accepted accounting principles. Yet, the GAAP are well established and quite necessary to a solid fundamental analysis of any stock. Is GAAP inside information? Are accountants “insiders”? Do they have an “unfair” trading advantage — for their knowledge of fundamental analysis of stock values (ratios) does in fact give them a trading advantage as Warren Buffet exemplifies. We rightly do not punish accountants for their expertise. Yet their expertise is based on a thorough knowledge of exactly the type of information that is regarded as “inside”!The untenability of the “inside” information distinction becomes clear if we look at insider trading from the perspective of information theory. Information, like any product, has a life cycle. All information starts its life cycle as “unknown”. Information at first is known by no one. Information is somehow discovered or invented. Then it is “known only by a few”. We might call these persons “insiders” and the law sometimes does. This “inside” information over time is disseminated at a rate corresponding to its value. When does the information stop being “inside” and start being “public”? I think that question is unanswerable. In any event, once an information becomes widely disseminated it has little value. The value of “inside” information exists because it is rare — like any product “rare” information has greater value than “common” information. And it is the very value of a piece of information that encourages its dissemination. Outlawing use of “inside” information is a very good way to slow down its publication. In no other market do we punish those who would profit from their knowledge. In fact, in a few markets — patents, trademarks and copyrights — the law actually makes information monopolies. The value of “insider” information determines how rapidly and to whom the information flows. When the law imposes restrictions on the use of insider information it is distorting market processes, restricting information flow and generates market inefficiency.75. According to the author, the value of the information depends on _.76. The description that the life cycle of information starts from “unknown” to “known only by a few”, then to “public” is following the _.77. We only punish those who would profit from their knowledge in _ market.78. In the first two paragraphs, the author wants to tell the readers that _.

I. JurisprudenceIt is practically impossible to imagine constitutional law without dissent. The very first opinion in the Charter era — the Patriation Reference — was marked by it. Dissent is powerful and evocative, even mythic; it suggests roads not taken and parallel universes. It evokes a fundamental and, sometimes, unsettling contingency about law. It can be problematic, disrupting easy understandings of how to a court “gets it right” and, thus, damaging to a court’s legitimacy.Yet, dissent has positive aspects, too. It can: better articulate norms and understandings underlying key decision-rules; provide a counter-narrative to prevailing orthodoxy; lay the foundation for future development of law; provide a necessary outlet for disagreement that otherwise might constrain and frustrate judicial actors; and even secure broader acceptance of a majority decision by showing that it is a product of deliberation.In this paper, I present another possible “upside” to dissent that focuses on the issue in Quebec (Attorney General) v. A: equality. First, I canvass two ways that dissent manifests in Charter jurisprudence: one (functional) relating to the judiciary’s appropriate role in constitutional disputes; and the other (principled) relating to the identification, scope or application of rules and norms. The two models are richly represented in equality jurisprudence. In the Supreme Court’s first Section 15 case, Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, the Court divided over the functional question of how closely the Court should scrutinize legislated difference. In subsequent cases, the Court has struggled to reach consensus on the meaning of equality itself — an issue of principle.The fact that equality jurisprudence has been characterized by chronic disagreement might appear unfortunate. But my review of section 15 case law suggests that, by providing the space to fully flesh out points of disagreement, dissent has contributed to richer accounts of equality. Borrowing the language of Cass Sunstein, I suggest that a divided equality decision that is the result of failure to reach agreement on “deep” issues is preferable to one that, as the price of unanimity, remains “shallow”. I conclude that the decision in Quebec (Attorney General) v. A is deep rather than shallow and so, despite its frustrating divisions, it is on the whole better than many of the unanimous equality decisions that preceded it.1.The author listed the following positive aspects of dissent BUT _.2.From the third paragraph, one can know the following BUT _.3.The author thinks that a divided equality decision is preferable because ___.4.What is the most suitable topic for these paragraphs?

VI. Litigation ProcedureMethods of serving process in civil cases have both evolved and eroded. In medieval England, arrest of the defendant was common at the outset of civil actions at law. Although arrest certainly provided notice, its primary purpose was to accomplish the court’s assertion of physical power over the defendant. Eventually, arrest at the commencement of a civil action was deferred. Arrest was then replaced with subjection to the court’s power by personal delivery of process, which served as the foundation for one modern service method where a United States Marshal personally hands the summons to a defendant.The idea that only a governmental officer, such as a United States Marshal or deputy, could be the server was eventually abandoned in favor of allowing the server to be any person that is at least eighteen years old and not a party to the lawsuit. Even the requirement that a defendant personally receive the summons was diluted by the addition of an alternative method allowing a summons and complaint to be left at the defendant’s “dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there.”From the recipient’s perspective, the summoning court’s assertion of power has gradually worn away. As one expert in the field aptly described: “The awesome impact of the sheriff arriving in armor and on horseback to deliver a writ in medieval England and the authority of the sovereign sealed in the hot, red wax of earlier times has been replaced by a bland manila envelope carrying a postage stamp that may celebrate notions of love or poetry.”Although most modern service methods are welcome improvements to those of earlier years (i.e., not needing to arrest all defendants in every civil action), this Article argues the service method authorized by Rule 7004 (b) (1) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure violates a defendant’s due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Rule 7004 (b) (1) allows a summons and complaint to be served by “first class mail postage prepaid...to the individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode or to the place where the individual regularly conducts a business or profession.” There is no acknowledgement of receipt, no certified mailing, and no waiver document that must be signed and returned. Other than the defendant’s response, if any, there is no way to know whether the defendant received the summons and complaint.71. The defendant in a civil case in the United States had been notified about the case in the following way BUT _.72. The last sentence in the 3rd paragraph means that _.73. According to Rule 7004 (b) (1), a defendant in a bankruptcy case is served by _.74. The problem of the Rule 7004 (b) (1) for serving a summons is the following, except _.

V. Civil and Commercial LawEarly in the 20th century, New Zealand adopted a national no-fault workers compensation scheme, replacing tort law for industrial accidents while leaving the rest of it intact. It also mandated tort liability insurance against auto accidents. During the 1960s, New Zealand established a royal commission to explore possible reforms to its workers compensation system. As sometimes occurs with such bodies, it decided not to be limited by its remit but proceeded instead to review the tort system more generally.In 1967, the commission published the Woodhouse Report (named after the justice who led the effort). It severely criticized the fault-based tort system’s “false morality,” unpredictable damage awards, and high transaction costs (amounting to over 40% of the total system costs, much lower than the comparable costs in U.S. asbestos litigation first launched at around the same time). In place of tort, the Report proposed a comprehensive no-fault compensation scheme for personal injuries generally (not just workplace accidents), one that it hoped would be designed to provide wage loss benefits roughly matching pre-injury earnings and additional benefits for permanent bodily impairment, while also promoting accident prevention, victim rehabilitation, and administrative efficiency.In 1972, the National Party government, whose Justice and Labour ministries had been actively promoting the commission and the Woodhouse Report, pushed through the Accident Compensation Act. It enjoyed bipartisan support and passed quite easily - a fact that will astonish any American lawyer observing the endless struggles over even the mildest tort reforms in the U.S. Amended in 1973 by the new Labour government to include accidents to non-wage earners, the Act went into effect in April 1974.Even more surprising, the public did not demand the new system. Instead, according to Geoffrey Palmer, it was the handiwork of a small group of dedicated reformers led by influential and prestigious judges. Success was assured when the major groups opposing the reform — the insurance industry, the bar, and labor unions — turned out to be politically weak and fragmented. The new system was not the comprehensive abolition of tort that the Woodhouse Report had proposed. Rather, it limited no-fault coverage to motor vehicle-related injuries and to wage-earners’ injuries (whether work related or not). But the government subsequently expanded the system to cover virtually all accidental injuries and to confer very broad benefits for victims. New Zealanders today generally regard their system (some disputed details aside) as a mainstay of their social policy.67. According to the 1st paragraph, which of the following statement about the commission is NOT true?68. The Woodhouse Report contained the following BUT _.69. Which statement about the Accident Compensation Act is true?70. The New Zealanders attitude towards the new tort system was _.

IV. Criminal LawTwo recent events have brought more attention to this problem. One involves the decision not to charge NBC anchor David Gregory with weapons — law violations bearing a potential year-long sentence — for brandishing a 30-round magazine (弹夹) (illegal in D.C.), despite the prosecutor’s statement that the on-air violation was clear; the other involves prosecutors’ rather enthusiastic efforts to prosecute Reddit (一个社会化新闻网站) founder Aaron Swartz for downloading academic journal articles from a closed database, prosecutorial efforts so enthusiastic that Swartz committed suicide in the face of a potential 50-year sentence.Both cases have aroused criticism, and in Swartz’s case even legislation designed to ensure that violating websites’ terms cannot be prosecuted as a crime. But the problem is much broader. Given the vast web of legislation and regulation that exists today, virtually any American is at risk of prosecution should a prosecutor decide that they are, in Robert Jackson’s (原美国司法部长，后任最高法院法官) words, a person “he should get.”As Tim Wu recounted in 2007, a popular game in the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York was to name a famous person — Mother Teresa (特蕾莎修女——诺贝尔和平奖获得者), or John Lennon (约翰•列侬——披头士乐队成员) — and decide how they could be prosecuted: “It would then be up to the junior prosecutors to figure out a plausible crime for which to indict him or her. The crimes were not usually rape, murder, or other crimes you’d see on a TV show but rather the incredibly broad yet obscure crimes that populate the U.S. Code like a kind of jurisprudential minefield: Crimes like ‘false statements’ (a felony, up to five years), ‘obstructing the mails’ (five years), or ‘false pretenses on the high seas’ (also five years). The trick and the skill lay in finding the more obscure offenses that fit the character of the celebrity and carried the toughest sentences. The, result, however, was inevitable: ‘prison time.’”With so many more federal laws and regulations than were present in Jackson’s day, the task for prosecutors of first choosing the man — or woman — and then pinning the crime on him or her has become much easier.The upshot of comment is that the proliferation of federal criminal statutes and regulations has reached the point that virtually every citizen, knowingly or not (usually not) is potentially at risk for prosecution. That is undoubtedly true, and the consequences are drastic and troubling.63. With the two examples in the 1st paragraph, the author wants to show that _.64. What is the problem the author thinks referred to in the 2nd paragraph?65. The game described by Tim Wu in the 3rd paragraph is _.66. The above paragraphs show that the author is ___ with the situation in the US.

Title:How to handle psychological pressure in today’s competitive lifeNOTES: Marks will be awarded for content, organization, grammar and appropriateness. Failure to follow the instruction may result in a loss of marks.

III. Constitutional Law and Administrative LawTwo centuries after Marbury v. Madison, there remains a deep confusion about quite what a court is reviewing when it engages in judicial review. Conventional wisdom has it that judicial review is the review of certain legal objects: statutes, regulations. But strictly speaking, this is not quite right. The Constitution prohibits not objects but actions. Judicial review is the review of such actions. And actions require actors: verbs require subjects. So before judicial review focuses on verbs, let alone objects, it should begin at the beginning, with subjects. Every constitutional inquiry should begin with a basic question that has been almost universally overlooked. The fundamental question, from which all else follows, is the who question: who has violated the Constitution?As judicial review is practiced today, courts skip over this bedrock question to get to the more familiar question: how was the Constitution violated? But it makes no sense to ask how, until there is an answer to who. Indeed, in countless muddled lines of doctrine, puzzlement about the predicates of constitutional violation follows directly from more fundamental confusion about the subjects.This fundamental confusion, like most confusion in law, stems from insufficient attention to text. Individual words are important, of course, but equally important is textual structure. The words form clauses and take on grammatical functions within those clauses. Within their clauses, these words become subjects, verbs, objects. The grammatical relationship among these words may be just as revealing as the words themselves. Grammatical imprecision can cause — and has caused — deep analytical and doctrinal confusion. But careful attention to constitutional grammar can reveal — and will reveal — nothing less than the constitutional structure of judicial review.Confusion about the who (and, relatedly, the when) of constitutional violation has been the root cause of many of the deepest puzzles of federal jurisdiction — puzzles of ripeness, of standing, of severability, of “facial” and “as-applied” challenges. Simply by focusing attention on this crucial constitutional feature, the subjects of the Constitution, these puzzles may be solved once and for all.And as they are solved, it becomes clear that this approach constitutes a new model of judicial review. According to Harvard Law Professor Richard Fallon, federal courts scholars have been doing much the same thing since the original publication of The Federal Courts and the Federal System in 1953 — “asking much the same questions formulated by Henry Hart and Herbert Wechsler…and trying to answer them with roughly the same techniques.”59. Why does the author think there remains a deep confusion about what a court is reviewing when it engages in judicial review?60. The underlined phrase “as revealing as” in the 3nd paragraph means _.61. The author thinks that the confusion about the who of constitutional violation has been the root cause of the following puzzles except _.62. Reading the paragraphs, one can tell that the author ___.

Three Yale University professors agreed in a panel discussion tonight that the automobile was what one of them called “Public Health Enemy No.1 in this country”. Besides polluting the air and congesting the cities, cars are involved in more than half the disabling accidents, and they cause heart disease “because we don’t walk anywhere anymore,” said Dr. H. Richard Weinerman, professor of medicine and public health. Dr. Weinerman’s sharp criticism of automobile came in a discussion of human environment on Yale Reports, a radio program broadcast by Station WTIC in Hartford, Connecticut. The program opened a three-part series on “Staying Alive”. “For the first time in human history, the problem of man’s survival has to do with his control of man-made dangers,” Dr. Weinerman said. “Before this, the problem had been the control of natural dangers.”Relating many of these dangers of the automobile, Arthur W. Galston, a professor of biology, said it was possible to make a kerosene-burning car that would “lessen smog by a very large factor”. But he expressed doubt that Americans were willing to give up moving about the countryside at 90 miles an hour in a large vehicle. “America seems wedded to the motor car — every family has to have at least two, and one has to be a convertible with 300 horsepower,” Professor Galston continued. “Is this the way of life that we choose because we cherish these values?”For Paul B. Sears, professor of conservation, part of the blame lies with “a society that regards profit as a supreme value, under the false idea that anything that’s technically possible is, therefore, ethically justified”. Professor Sears also called the country’s dependence on its modern automobile “lousy economics” because of the large horsepower used simply “moving one person to work”. But he agreed that Americans have painted themselves into a comer by allowing the national economy to become so reliant on the automobile industry.According to Dr. Weinerman, automobiles, not the factories, are responsible for two-thirds of the smog in American cities, and the smog presents the possibility of a whole new kind of epidemic, not due to one germ, but due to polluted environment. “Within another five to ten years, it’s possible to have an epidemic of lung cancer in a city like Los Angeles. This is a new phenomenon in health concern,” he said.The solution, he continued, is “not to find a less dangerous fuel, but a different system of inner-city transportation. Because of the increasing use of cars, public transportation has been allowed to wither and degenerate, so that if you can’t walk to where you want to go, you have to have a car in most cities,” he asserted. This, in turn, Dr. Weinerman contended, is responsible for the “arteriosclerosis” of public roads, for the blight of the inner city and for the middle-class movement to the suburbs.1. The main idea of this article is that _.2.In paragraph 2, Professor Galston implies that _.3.In paragraph 3, Professor Sears implies that _.4.It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that _.5.Dr. Weinerman would probably agree that ___, if public transportation were improved.

II. Legal HistoryBefore the upheavals of the late 11th and early 12th centuries, the peoples of Europe were organized politically in a loose, complex, and overlapping structure of (1) local units, (2) lordship units, (3) tribal (clan) units, (4) large territorial units such as duchies or principalities, which might include a number of tribes (clans), and (5) kingdoms, of which the Frankish kingdom, from the year 800, was called an umpire. The kingdoms were conceived not as territorial units but primarily as the community of the Christian people under a king (emperor), who was considered to be Christ’s deputy and supreme head of the church as well as of the nobility, the clans, and the army. The church itself was not conceived as a political unit but primarily as a spiritual community led ultimately by the king or emperor and intermediately by bishops, of whom the Bishop of Rome was by tradition the most important.Within this general classification, there were very wide differences from locality to locality, lordship unit to lordship unit, tribal unit to tribal unit, and so on. The economy of Europe before the 11th century was largely local and agrarian. There was very little intercommunication; apart from monks and some others of the clergy and a small number of merchants, and except for military campaigns, only the higher nobility and kings travelled. There were practically no permanent representatives of the central authorities in the localities. Efforts to place them were generally frustrated. Not only power but also culture was widely dispersed. The customs of one place might differ substantially from the customs of another place fifty miles away.Nevertheless, the political organization of the peoples of Europe in the period from 6th to the 11th centuries reveals a common pattern of development.The smallest local political units were generally called villae ( “villages” or “vills” ); these were grouped into centenarii ( “hundreds” ), which were grouped, in turn, into comitatus ( “counties” ). These local units first came into being when the wandering tribes from western Asia, having swallowed up what was left of the Roman Empire in the West, finally settled down in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries.The second type of unit, lordship units, came into being soon thereafter. Their number increased as settlers “commended themselves” to leading personages among them and promised to render services in tern for food and clothing as well as for protection against enemies.55. Which of the following description of a kingdom before the 11th century is NOT correct?56. The ones who did not travel before the 11th century were _.57. The reason that the efforts to place permanent representatives of the central authorities in the localities were generally frustrated was that _.58. The political units from 6th to 11th centuries originated in ___.

I. JurisprudenceMany readers will remember that during the electoral debacle in Florida in 2000, the Rule of Law was invoked at each stage on all sides of every issue, culminating in the famous dissent by Justice Stevens in Bush v. Gore: “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the Rule of Law.”Thousands of other examples could be cited. The Rule of Law is seen as a fragile but crucial ideal, and one that is appropriately invoked whenever governments try to get their way by arbitrary and oppressive action or by short-circuiting the norms and procedures laid down in a country’s laws or constitution. Interfering with the courts, jailing someone without legal justification, detaining people without any safeguards of due process, manipulating the constitution for partisan advantage — all these are seen as abuses of the Rule of Law.I would like to consider the role of this ideal in general jurisprudence, that is, in the conceptual work that we do in legal philosophy when we try to explain what law is. I am going to argue for two propositions: I shall argue that our understanding of the Rule of Law and our understanding of the concept of law ought to be much more closely connected than they are in modern jurisprudence; I shall argue also that our understanding of the Rule of Law should emphasize not just the value of settled, determinate rules and the predictability that they make possible, but also the importance of the procedural and argumentative aspects of legal practice.I shall argue, moreover, that these two propositions are connected. It is much easier to grasp the connection between the Rule of Law and the concept of law when we understand the Rule of Law at least partly in terms of procedural and argumentative themes than when we see it purely in terms of determinacy and predictability. The procedural aspect of the Rule of Law helps bring our conceptual thinking about law to life; and an understanding of legal systems that emphasizes argument in the courtroom as much as the existence and recognition of rules provides the basis for a much richer understand of the values that the Rule of Law comprises in modern political argument.51. According to the first paragraph, which of the following is NOT correct?52. According to the author, which of the following is NOT an abuse of the Rule of Law?53. According to the 3rd paragraph, the author thinks that ___.54. Which statement is correct according to the 4th paragraph?

DIRECTIONS: For this part, you are going to write a short essay on the title. You should write about 250 words and write your essay on the ANSWER SHEET 2.Title:Media and Law in China TodayNOTES: Marks will be awarded for content, organization, grammar and appropriateness. Failure to follow the instruction may result in a loss of marks.

For more than two decades, U.S. courts have been limiting affirmative-action programs in universities and other areas. The legal rationale is that racial preferences are unconstitutional, even those intended to compensate for racism or intolerance. For many colleges, this means students can be admitted only on merit, not on their race or ethnicity. It has been a divisive issue across the U.S., as educators blame the prolonged reaction to affirmative-action for declines in minority admissions. Meanwhile, activists continue to battle race preferences in courts from Michigan to North Carolina.Now, chief executives of about two dozen companies have decided to plunge headfirst into this politically unsettled debate. They, together with 36 universities and 7 nonprofitable organizations, formed a forum that set forth an action plan essentially designed to help colleges circumvent court-imposed restrictions on affirmative action. The CEOs’ motive: “Our audience is growing more diverse, so the communities we serve benefit if our employees are racially and ethnically diverse as well”, says one CEO of a compang that owns nine television stations.Among the steps the forum is pushing: finding creative yet legal ways to boost minority enrollment through new admissions policies; promoting admissions decisions that look at more than test scores; and encouraging universities to step up their minority outreach and financial aid. And to counter accusations by critics to challenge these tactics in court, the group says it will give legal assistance to colleges sued for trying them. “Diversity diminished by the court must be made up for in other legitimate, legal ways,” says, a forum member.One of the more controversial methods advocated is the so-called 10% rule. The idea is for public universities — which educate three-quarters of all U.S. undergraduates — to admit students who are in the top 10% of their high school graduating class. Doing so allows colleges to take minorities who excel in average urban schools, even if they wouldn’t have made the cut under the current statewide ranking many universities use.46. U.S. court restrictions on affirmative action signifies that _.47. What has been a divisive issue across the United States?48. CEOs of big companies decided to help colleges enroll more minority students because they _.49. The major tactic the forum uses is to _.50. If the 10% rule is applied, _.

Between the eighth and eleventh centuries A.D.，the Byzantine Empire (拜占庭帝国) staged an almost unparalleled economic and cultural revival, a recovery that is all the more striking because it followed a long period of severe internal decline. By the early eighth century, the empire had lost roughly two-thirds of the territory it had possessed in the year 600, and its remaining area was being raided by Arabs and Bulgarians, who at times threatened to take Constantinople and extinguished the empire altogether. The wealth of the state and its subjects was greatly diminished, and artistic and literary production had virtually ceased. By the early eleventh century, however, the empire had regained almost half of its lost possessions, its new frontiers were secure, and its influence extended far beyond its borders. The economy had recovered, the treasury was full, and art and scholarship had advanced.To consider the Byzantine military, cultural, and economic advances as differentiated aspects of a single phenomenon is reasonable. After all, these three forms of progress have gone together in a number of states and civilizations. Rome under Augustus and fifth-century Athens provide the most obvious examples in antiquity. Moreover, an examination of the apparent sequential connections among military, economic, and cultural forms of progress might help explain the dynamics of historical change.The common explanation of these apparent connections in the case of Byzantium would run like this: when the empire had turned back enemy raids on its own territory and had begun to raid and conquer enemy territory, Byzantine resources naturally expanded and more money became available to patronize art and literature. Therefore, Byzantine military achievements led to economic advances, which in turn led to cultural revival.No doubt this hypothetical pattern did apply at times during the course of the recovery. Yet it is not clear that military advances invariably came first. Economic advances second, and intellectual advances third. In the 860’s the Byzantine Empire began to recover from Arab incursions so that by 872 the military balance with the Abbasid Caliphate had been permanently altered in the empire’s favor. The beginning of the empire’s economic revival, however, can be placed between 810 and 830. Finally, the Byzantine revival of learning appears to have begun even earlier. A number of notable scholars and writers appeared by 788 and, by the last decade of the eighth century, a cultural revival was in full bloom, a revival that lasted until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Thus, the commonly expected order of military revival followed by economic and then by cultural recovery was reversed in Byzantium. In fact, the revival of Byzantine learning may itself have influenced the subsequent economic and military expansion.41. Which of the following best states the central idea of the text?42. It can be inferred from the text that the Byzantine Empire sustained significant territorial losses _.43. In the third paragraph, the author most probably provides an explanation of the apparent connections among economic, military, and cultural development in order to _.44. Which of the following does the author mention as crucial evidence concerning the manner in which the Byzantine revival began?45. According to the author, “The common explanation” (paragraph 3) of connections between economic, military, and cultural development is ___.

暂未登录

学员用户尊享特权

老师批改作业做题助教答疑学员专用题库高频考点梳理

上一页 1 2 3 4 5 6 下一页