请输入或粘贴题目内容
搜题
拍照、语音搜题，请扫码下载APP
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
A．supremacy
B．authority
C．guidance
D．obedience
答案
更多“Justices of the peace have jurisdiction over the trials of some civil suits and of crimina”相关的问题
第1题
One of the characteristics of Bobos is that they______.
A．pursue a life of comfort and peace
B．lack the incentive to work hard
C．may make conscientious decisions
D．have abandoned traditional morality
第2题
There are () justices in the Supreme Court.
A、6
B、7
C、8
D、9
第3题
A.in London
B.on particular occasions
C.in other provinces
D.for the local Justices of Peace
第4题
What can be learned from the last paragraph？
A. Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress.
B. Justices intended to check the power of the Administrstion.
C. Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress.
D. The Administration is dominant over immigration issues.
第5题
【M1】
第6题
Is that label accurate？ Is it intolerant to challenge another’s opinion？ It depends on what definition of opinion you have in mind. For example, you may ask a friend “What do you think of the new Ford cars？” And he may reply, “In my opinion, they’re ugly.” In this case, it would not only be intolerant to challenge his statement, but foolish. For it’s obvious that by opinion he means his personal preference, a matter of taste. And as the old saying goes, “It’s pointless to argue about matters of taste.”
But consider this very different use of the term, a newspaper reports that the Supreme Court has delivered its opinion in a controversial case. Obviously the justices did not shale their personal preferences, their mere likes and dislikes, they stated their considered judgment, painstakingly arrived at after thorough inquiry and deliberation.
Most of what is referred to as opinion falls somewhere between these two extremes. It is not an expression of taste. Nor is it careful judgment. Yet it may contain elements of both. It is a view or belief more or less casually arrived at, with or without examining the evidence.
Is everyone entitled to his opinion？ Of course, this is not only permitted, but guaranteed. We are free to act on our opinions only so long as, in doing so, we do not harm others.
第36题：Which of the following statements is TRUE, according to the author？
A．Everyone has a right to hold his own opinion.
B．Free expression of opinions often leads to confusion.
C．Most people tend to be careless in forming their opinions.
D．Casual use of the word “opinion” often brings about quarrels.
第7题
Is that label accurate？ Is it intolerant to challenge another's opinion？ It depends on what definition of opinion you have in mind. For example, you may ask a friend, "What do you think of the new Ford cars？" And he may reply, "In my opinion, they're ugly." In this case, it would not only be intolerant to challenge his statement, but foolish. For it's obvious that by opinion he means his personal preference, a matter of taste. And as the old saying goes, "It's pointless to argue about matters of taste."
But consider this very different use of the term. A newspaper reports that the Supreme Court has delivered its opinion in a controversial case. Obviously the justices did not state their personal preferences, their mere likes and dislikes. They stated their considered judgment, painstakingly arrived at after thorough inquiry and deliberation.
Most of what is referred to as opinion falls somewhere between these two extremes. It is not an expression of taste. Nor is it careful judgment. Yet it may contain elements of both. It is a view or belief more or less casually arrived at, with or without examining the evidence.
Is everyone entitled to his opinion？ Of course, this is not only permitted, but guaranteed. We are free to act on our opinions only so long as, in doing so, we do not harm others.
Which of the following statements is TRUE, according to the author？
A．Everyone has a right to hold his own opinion.
B．Free expression of opinions often leads to confusion.
C．Most people tend to be careless in forming their opinions.
D．Casual use of the word "opinion" often brings about quarrels.
第8题
Purely by accident, these women learned they were making less than their male or, in Goodwin's case, white colleagues at work. Each sued for pay discrimination under federal law, lucky enough to discover what typically stays a secret. "People don't just stand around the watercooler to talk about how much they make," says McMillan.
This, as they say, is the real world, one in which people would rather discuss their sex lives than salaries. And about a third of private employers actually prohibit employees from sharing pay information. It is also a world that the U. S. Supreme Court seems unfamiliar with. The Justices recently decided 5 to 4 that workers are out of luck if they file a complaint under Title Ⅶ—the main federal antidiscrimination law—more than 180 days after their salary is set. That's six measly months to find out what your co-workers are making so that you can tell whether you're getting chiseled because of your sex, race, religion or national origin.
How many of the roughly 2,800 such complaints pending before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will fizzle because of this new rule is hard to say. Less of a mystery, though just as troubling, is how the court reached its decision.
Lilly Ledbetter filed the case against Goodyear Tire ＆ Rubber Co. because at the end of a 19-year career, she was making far less than any of 15 men at her level She argued that Goodyear violated Title Ⅶ every time it gave her a smaller paycheck. Her complaint was timely, she said, because she filed it within 180 days of her last check. But the court majority read the statute to mean that only an actual decision to pay Ledbetter less could be illegal, and that happened well outside the 180-day period. A statute's ambiguous wording is fair game, but why read it to frustrate Title Ⅶ's purpose: to ease pay discrimination in a nation where women make only 77￠ on average for every $1 that men earn？ And while employers might like this decision, they could end up choking on the torrent of lawsuits that might now come their way. "The real message is that if you have any inkling that you are being paid differently, you need to file now, before the 180 days are up," says Michael Foreman of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights.
All this sounds familiar. In June 1989, the Supreme Court issued three decisions that sharply limited the right to sue over employment discrimination. A day after the most prominent ruling, in Wards Cove v. Atonio, Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D., Ohio) declared that he would introduce a bill to overturn the decisions.
It took civil rights advocates and their congressional allies eight months to introduce legislation. President George H. W. Bush vetoed the first version, arguing that it would encourage hiring quotas. Finally, in late 1991, the Democratic Congress and the Republican President reached a compromise fashioned by Senators John Danforth (R., Mo.) and Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.). It became the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and overturned parts of eight high-court decisions.
Now, Foreman and others are working on a bill to overturn the Ledbetter case, and Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, among others, have expressed interest. A Democratic Congress may well cooperate, though with a Republican again in the White House, final legislation before next year's elections isn't guaranteed. In any event, we probably won't see the kind of groundswell that shifted the law toward workers in 1991 because civil rights advocates aren't sure these Justices are a threat to wor
A．the discrimination of sex, race, religion and national origin
B．the arguments over Goodwin' s case of pay discrimination
C．what the real world we live in is like
D．the arguments over the issue of pay discrimination against women at work
第9题
Taxes in Early America
Taxes have always left a sour taste in the mouth of American citizens. This national hatred for taxes dates back to the tax burden placed on the American colonies by Great Britain. Colonists were taxed for every consumer goods, from tea and tobacco to legal documents. This "taxation without representation" led to many revolts, such as the Boston Tea Party, in which colonists dumped tea into the Boston Harbor rather than pay the tax on it.
Although the American colonists fought for independence from British rule and British taxes, once the United States government formed, its main source of revenue was derived from placing customs and excise taxes on the same items that were taxed by Great Britain. In 1812, in an effort to support an expensive war effort, the U.S. government imposed the first sales tax, which was placed on gold, silverware, jewelry and watches. In 1817, internal taxes were terminated and the government relied on tariffs to support itself. It wasn't until 1862 that the United States imposed the first national income tax.
To support the Union Army, Congress passed tax laws in both 1861 and 1862. The office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue was established by the Tax Act of 1862, which stated that the commissioner would have the power to levy and collect taxes. The office was also given the authority to seize property and income in order to enforce the tax laws. These powers remain pretty much the same today, although the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) will tell you that enforcement tactics have been toned down a bit.
In 1863, the federal government collected the first income tax. This graduated tax was similar to the income tax we pay today. Those who earned $ 600 to $ 10,000 per year paid at a rate of 3 percent. A higher rate was paid by those who earned in excess of $ 10,000. A fiat-rate tax was imposed in 1867. Five years later, in 1872, the national income tax was abolished altogether.
Inspired by the Populist Party's 1892 campaign, Congress passed the Income Tax Act of 1894. This act taxed 2 percent of personal income that was more than $ 4,000, which only affected the wealthiest citizens. The income tax was short-lived, .as the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down only a year after it was passed. The justices wrote that, in their opinion, the income tax was unconstitutional because it failed to abide by a Constitutional guideline. This guideline required that any tax levied directly on individuals must be levied in proportion to a state's population.
In 1913, the income tax became a permanent part of the U. S. government. Congress avoided the constitutional roadblock mentioned above by passing a constitutional amendment. The 16th Amendment reads, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Alternative: Flat Tax Or National Sales Tax
Since the 16th amendment was passed in 1913, there has been no shortage of people proposing new tax systems since then. If you follow presidential campaigns, there are usually talks from some of the candidates on revising the tax system. Here's a quick look at two of these alternative tax p
A．Y
B．N
C．NG
