这是13年考研英语一中的一道阅读题的原文，现用于练习翻译。
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 federal government and the states.
周一，最高法庭以5比3的投票否决了亚利桑那州的移民法律。这是奥巴马政府在政策上的一次小的胜利。但在更重要的关于宪法的问题上，最高法院以8比0的投票否决了政府提出的试图改变联邦政府与各州之间权力平衡的提议。
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 immigrations 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 police that ran to the existing federal ones.
在这亚利桑那vs美国的裁决中，大多数人否定了亚利桑那州提出的关于让州和当地警察加强联邦移民法的执行的争议提案的四点中的三点。宪法规定只有华盛顿拥有建立归化条例的权力，联邦法律优先于州法律，这两点无可争议。亚利桑那企图让州的政策平行于现有的联邦的政策运行。
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
法官安东尼·肯尼迪，和大法官约翰·罗伯特斯与法庭的自由党人士，裁定亚利桑那和作为太阳的联邦飞得太近。关于被否定的提案，大多数人认为国会已经占据了这个领域，而亚利桑那已经侵犯了联邦的特权。
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，法官们也表示亚利桑那的警察可以根据法律强制检查移入者。因为国会一直以来都提倡联邦和州一起管控移民，并且明确鼓励州的官员和联邦的同事分享信息并合作。
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.
三位表示反对的法官中的两位：法官塞缪尔·阿利托和克莱伦斯·托马斯，认同这一宪法的逻辑，但不认同亚利桑那与联邦法规相背的规则但就亚利桑那提出的哪一条提案与宪法相悖，意见不一。。唯一的主要反对意见来自法官安东宁·斯卡利亚。他在过去的外国人与煽动叛乱法案中就为国家的特权做过强有力的辩护。 他用过去外国人与煽动叛乱法案的例子为州的特权做了强有力的辩护。
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 the 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.
总统奥巴马的提案被8比0的全票否决。法官塞缪尔·阿利托把这个提案表述为对联邦行政权力的过度加强惊人主张。白宫认为亚利桑那违反了它的法律优先性，尽管 即使 它的州法严格遵守了联邦宪法。事实上，白宫称它可以使任何它不同意的州法无效，即使它合乎联邦宪法。
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 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.
联邦政府的确享有一些只有它才有的权力，比如国籍和边界的管控。但如果国会想阻止各州使用自己的资源来检查移民状况的话，它可以。但它从没这样做过。联邦政府其实是在声明，因为它不想执行国会的移民计划，其它各州也不能这样做。每位法官都正确地否定了这个过分的提案。