根据以下资料，回答{TSE}题。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. {TS}Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because they deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers.。 disturbed the power balance between different states.。 overstepped the authority of federal immigration law.。 contradicted both the federal and state policies.。
According to Cline, mass-maket labels urge consumers to combat unnecessary waste.。 shut out the feverish fashion world.。 resist the influence of advertisements.。 shop for their garments more frequently. 。
根据以下资料，回答{TSE}题。In the 2006 film version of The Devil Wears Prada, Miranda Priestly, played by Meryl Streep, scold her unattractive assistant for imagining that high fashion doesn’t affect her.Priestly explains how the deep blue color of the assistant’s sweater descended over the years from fashion shows to department stores and to the bargain bin in which the poor girl doubtless found her garment.This top-down conception of the fashion business couldn’t be more out of date or at odds with feverish world described in Overdressed, Elizabeth Cline’s three-year indictment of “fast fashion”.In the last decades or so, advances in technology have allowed mass-market labels such as Zara, H&M, and Uniqlo to react to trends more quickly and anticipate demand more precisely.Quckier turnrounds mean less wasted inventory, more frequent releases, and more profit.Those labels encourage style-conscious consumers to see clothes as disposal—— meant to last only a wash or two, although they don’t advertise that——and to renew their wardrobe every few weeks.By offering on-trend items at dirt-cheap prices, Cline argues, these brands have hijacked fashion cycles, shaking all industry long accustomed to a seasonal pace.The victims of this revolution, of course, are not limited to designers.For H&M to offer a 5.95 knit miniskirt in all its 2300-plus stores around the world, it must rely on low-wage, overseas labor, order in volumes that strain natural resources, and use massive amount of harmful chemicals.Overdressed is the fashion world’s answer to consumer activist bestsellers like Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma.Mass-produced clothing, like fast food, fills a hunger and need, yet is non-durable, and wasteful,” Cline argues, Americans, she finds, buy roughly 20 billion garments a year——about 64 items per person——and no matter how much they give away, this excess leads to waste.Towards the end of Overdressed, Cline introduced her ideal, a Brooklyn woman named SKB, who, since 2008 has make all of her own clothes——and beautifully.But as Cline is the first to note, it took Beaumont decades to perfect her craft; her example, can’t be knocked off.Though several fast-fashion companies have made efforts to curb their impact on labor and the environment——including H&M, with its green Conscious Collection Line——Cline believes lasting-change can only be effected by the customer.She exhibits the idealism common to many advocates of sustainability, be it in food or in energy.Vanity is a constant; people will only start shopping more sustainably when they can’t afford to it.{TS}Priestly criticizes her assistant for her poor bargaining skill.。 insensitivity to fashion.。 obsession with high fashion.。 lack of imagination. 。
Which of the following can be inferred from the lase paragraph?
