旧主页

首页> 在线翻译> 翻译详情

奥尔德佩奇

President Donald Trump’s emergency declaration to build a border wall has provoked a constitutional confrontation with Congress.
唐纳德特朗普总统建立边界墙的紧急声明引发了与国会的宪法对抗。
Here is the background for understanding what’s at stake – beginning more than two centuries ago.
以下是了解利害攸关的背景 - 从两个多世纪以前开始。
A major problem for the framers at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 was how to create a presidency powerful enough to protect the nation, yet constrained enough to prevent a president from becoming a dictator.
1787年制宪会议制定者的一个主要问题  是如何建立一个足以保护国家的总统职位, 但却足以阻止总统成为独裁者。
Ultimately, the president was given power to enforce the law, conduct foreign relations and command the armed forces. Congress retained most other key powers, including the power of the purse and the power to declare war.
最终,总统有权执行法律,开展对外关系并指挥武装部队。国会保留了大多数其他关键权力,包括钱包的权力和宣战的权力。
The framers knew they could not predict all that the future would bring. So they left the precise boundaries between presidential and congressional power unclear. This imprecision in our checks and balances has served the nation well for 230 years because it provides the flexibility to govern while preventing tyranny.
制定者知道他们无法预测未来会带来的一切。因此,他们离开了总统和国会权力之间的界限。  我们制衡的这种不精确性对国家有利 230年,因为它提供了治理的灵活性 防止暴政。
As scholars of constitutional law and history, we believe that President Trump’s assertion of a national emergency to build a wall along the Mexican border and the lawsuits filed in response together threaten the very imprecision that has helped maintain constitutional checks and balances for more than two centuries.
作为宪法和历史的学者,我们认为特朗普总统关于在墨西哥边境修建隔离墙的国家紧急状态和一起回应的诉讼的威胁使得两个多世纪以来维持宪法制衡的非常不精确。
To best maintain that balance, this confrontation should be resolved in the political realm, not in the courts.  The signing of the Constitution of the United States. Architect of the Capitol; Howard Chandler Christy, artist The national emergency
为了最好地保持这种平衡,这种对抗应该在政治领域解决,而不是在法庭上解决。
But the lawsuits over the emergency declaration will probably reach the Supreme Court, and the court might well hold Trump’s emergency declaration unconstitutional.
但是关于紧急声明的诉讼可能会达成 最高法院和法院可能会很好地控制特朗普的紧急情况 声明违宪。
That would set a precedent that would unduly limit national emergency power that some future president may need.
这将开创一个先例,不会过度限制未来总统可能需要的国家应急权力。
Alternatively, the court could decide the lawsuits in Trump’s favor. That would invert the entire constitutional order, where Congress appropriates and the president spends. It would undercut the checks and balances provided by the framers and lead to an incredibly powerful presidency.
或者,法院可以决定对特朗普有利的诉讼。 这将颠覆国会的整个宪法秩序 拨款和总统花费。它会削弱检查和 由制定者提供的平衡,并导致一个令人难以置信的强大 总统。
Either result the court reaches would set a bad precedent.
无论哪种结果,法庭达成都将开创一个不好的先例。
Congress can avert this problem.
国会可以避免这个问题。
The 1976 National Emergencies Act gives Congress power to invalidate a president’s declaration of emergency by a resolution passed by simple majorities of both houses.
1976年国家紧急情况法案  赋予国会权力,使总统的声明无效 两院简单多数通过决议的紧急情况。
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, announced that the House would vote Tuesday on a resolution to block the emergency declaration.
众议院议长南希佩洛西宣布众议院将于周二就阻止紧急声明的决议投票。
White House adviser Stephen Miller has already suggested that Trump would veto any such resolution.
白宫顾问斯蒂芬米勒已经建议特朗普否决任何此类决议。
“He’s going to protect his national emergency declaration. Guaranteed,” Miller said on Fox News. Both the House and the Senate would then need two-thirds majorities to override his veto.
“他将保护他的国家紧急声明。保证,“米勒在福克斯新闻报道。众议院和参议院都需要三分之二的多数来取代他的否决权。
We believe that for Congress to protect the constitutional order, its members must muster the necessary two-thirds majority. To the court
我们认为,国会要保护宪法秩序,其成员必须集中必要的三分之二多数。 到法院
If Congress does not override the president’s veto, the lawsuits will probably go to the Supreme Court. The court’s decision has strong potential to do harm to the historic constitutional balance.
如果国会不推翻总统的否决权,那么诉讼就会出现  可能会去最高法院。法院的决定很有力 可能损害历史性的宪法平衡。
That balance was upheld by the Supreme Court in a crucial decision more than 50 years ago.
在50多年前的一项关键决定中,最高法院维持了这种平衡。
On April 9, 1952, President Truman declared a national emergency. In the midst of the Korean War, he seized the country’s steel mills on the eve of a nationwide strike because steel was necessary to make weapons. The steel companies immediately brought a lawsuit against the seizure in federal court.
1952年4月9日,杜鲁门总统宣布全国紧急状态。  在朝鲜战争期间,他占领了该国的钢铁厂 全国罢工的前夕,因为必须制造钢铁 武器。钢铁公司立即对此提起诉讼 在联邦法院扣押。
Recognizing the importance of the issue, the Supreme Court heard arguments on May 12, and handed down its decision on June 2.
最高法院认识到这一问题的重要性,于5月12日听取了论点,并于6月2日作出了决定。
The court, in Youngstown Company v. Sawyer, rejected the president’s claim by a 6-3 majority.
在扬斯敦公司诉索耶案中,法院以6-3的多数票否决了总统的诉讼请求。
Justice Robert Jackson wrote an opinion proclaiming a general approach to the balance of powers between Congress and the president, rather than a fixed rule.
罗伯特杰克逊法官写了一个宣称将军的意见 处理国会与总统之间的权力平衡, 而不是固定的规则。
Jackson declared that “when the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum.”
杰克逊宣称“当总统根据国会的明示或默示授权行事时,他的权力最大化。”
The president’s power, Jackson wrote, is in a “zone of twilight” when Congress has not spoken. When “the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb.” President against Congress
杰克逊写道,总统的权力处于“暮光之城”时  国会没有发言。当“总统采取措施 不符合国会表达或暗示的意愿,他的权力 处于最低潮。“ 总统反对国会
President Trump is acting contrary to Congress’s will by appropriating money Congress has refused to appropriate. He signed a carefully constructed compromise budget bill passed by more than veto-proof two-thirds majorities in both houses. He accepted the US$1.375 billion that the bill gave him for a border wall.
特朗普总统通过挪用国会拒绝接受的资金,违背了国会的意愿。他签署了一份精心构建的妥协预算法案  在两院中通过了超过三分之二多数的否决权。他  接受该法案给他的边界墙的13.75亿美元。
He then broke the deal by declaring a national emergency to allocate an additional $6.7 billion to pay for border wall construction.
然后,他宣布全国紧急情况再分配67亿美元用于支付边界墙建设,从而打破了这笔交易。
In two important cases, the Supreme Court has broadly prohibited Congress from giving any of its appropriations authority or responsibility to the president – even voluntarily.
在两个重要的案例中,  最高法院广泛禁止国会给予任何一项 它对总统的拨款权力或责任 - 甚至 自愿。
Congress’s adoption of a joint resolution seeking to invalidate Trump’s emergency declaration – an explicit statement of congressional will – would provide conclusive evidence that would only strengthen the argument that the president is acting contrary to Congress’s will. Preserving the constitutional balance
国会通过了一项寻求无效的联合决议 特朗普的紧急声明 - 国会的明确声明 意志 - 将提供确凿的证据,只会加强 关于总统违反国会意愿的论点。 保持宪法平衡
If the case gets to the Supreme Court, the president’s lawyers might argue that for Congress to decisively oppose an emergency declaration of the president, lawmakers must override his veto by a two-thirds vote.
如果案件进入最高法院,总统的律师可能会 认为国会要果断地反对紧急声明  总统,立法者必须以三分之二的票数否决他的否决权。
Imposing such a veto override requirement, however, would eliminate the court’s role. That’s because a presidential declaration of emergency is immediately invalid if Congress overrides a presidential veto.
然而,实施这样的否决权超越要求将会消除 法院的角色。那是因为总统宣布紧急状态  如果国会推翻总统否决权,则立即无效。
Two-thirds overrides are historically unlikely by Congress. And requiring a two-thirds vote would give a president who declares a national emergency virtually unlimited power to appropriate money to his or her heart’s content – perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars to address, for example, climate change by subsidizing construction of wind farms.
国会在历史上不太可能有三分之二的覆盖率。  需要三分之二的投票才会让总统宣布一个 国家紧急几乎无限的权力,以适当的钱给他  或者她心中的内容 - 也许是数千亿美元 例如,通过补贴风力建设来应对气候变化  农场。
Requiring Congress to override a presidential veto that protects a presidential appropriation would turn the appropriations power and the Constitution’s checks and balances inside out.
要求国会推翻保护国会的总统否决权 总统拨款将扭转拨款权力 宪法的内外制衡。
Congress has already spoken through passing the spending bill and will be considering a resolution to invalidate the president’s declaration of emergency.
国会已经通过了支出法案和 将考虑一项决议,使总统无效 紧急情况宣言。
Such a resolution, even if vetoed by the president, places President Trump’s declaration in Justice Jackson’s category where presidential power “is at its lowest ebb.”
这样一项决议,即使被总统否决,也是总统 特朗普宣判杰克逊的总统类别 权力“处于最低潮”。
It also preserves the historic flexibility by allowing the court’s decision to give deference to the votes of Congress in cases of claimed emergencies.
它还允许法院保留历史性的灵活性 在声称的情况下决定尊重国会的投票 紧急情况。
备注:
完成本项翻译奖励:1000译点 | 英语->汉语 | 字数:1022字 | 阅读数: 64

提交时间:2019/3/15 11:09:00

译文(1)

我心永恒

唐纳德-特朗普总统为建立边界墙而宣布紧急状态引发了与国会的宪法对抗。
以下是了解利害攸关的背景 - 从两个多世纪以前开始。
1787年制宪会议制定者的一个主要问题 是如何建立一个足以保护国家的总统职位,但又能足以阻止总统成为独裁者。
最终,总统有权执行法律,开展对外关系并指挥武装部队。国会保留了大多数其他关键权力,包括管住钱包和宣战的权力。
宪法制定者知道他们无法预测未来会带来的一切。因此,他们让总统和国会的权力边界模糊不清。  这种制衡的不精确性230年来一直对国家有利 ,因为它既提供了治理的灵活性 又能防止暴政。
作为宪法和历史学者,我们认为特朗普总统关于在墨西哥边境修建隔离墙的国家紧急状态和由此引发的作为回应的诉讼对两个多世纪以来所维持的宪法制衡的不精确性构成了威胁。
为了最好地保持这种平衡,这种对抗应该在政治领域解决,而不是在法庭上。
但是针对紧急状态的诉讼可能会被提交到最高法院,而法院可能会宣布特朗普的紧急状态声明违宪。
这将开创一个先例,将会适当限制未来总统可能需要的国家应急权力。
或者,法院可以作出对特朗普有利的判决。 这将颠覆整个宪法秩序:即国会负责 拨款,而总统负责花费。它会削弱宪法制定者所提供的制衡,并导致一个令人难以置信的强大 总统。
无论哪种结果,提交个法庭都将开创一个不好的先例。
国会可以避免这个问题。
1976年国家紧急情况法案  赋予国会权力,两院可以简单多数通过决议使总统的紧急状态声明无效 。
众议院议长南希佩洛西宣布众议院将于周二就阻止紧急状态声明的决议投票。
白宫顾问斯蒂芬-米勒已经建议特朗普否决任何此类决议。
“他将保护他的国家紧急状态声明。我保证,“米勒在福克斯新闻上说。众议院和参议院都需要三分之二的多数来推翻他的否决权。
我们认为,国会要保护宪法秩序,其成员必须达到三分之二多数。 上法院
如果国会不能推翻总统的否决权,那么诉讼就会出现  可能会告到最高法院。法院的判决有很大可能损害历史性的宪法平衡。
在50多年前的一项关键判决中,最高法院维持了这种平衡。
1952年4月9日,杜鲁门总统宣布全国紧急状态。  在朝鲜战争期间,他在全国罢工的前夕接管了该国的钢铁厂 ,因为造武器必须用到钢铁 。钢铁公司立即对此接管在联邦法院提起诉讼。
最高法院认识到这一问题的重要性,于5月12日听取了各方争论,并于6月2日作出了决定。
在扬斯敦公司诉索耶案中,法院以6-3的多数票否决了总统的诉讼请求。

罗伯特杰克逊法官写了一份意见,宣称用一个普遍的姿态而不是固定的规则来处理国会与总统之间的权力平衡, 。
杰克逊宣称“当总统根据国会的明示或默示授权行事时,他的权力最大化。”
杰克逊写道,当国会默不作声是,总统的权力处于“暮光之城”  。当“总统采取措施 不符合国会明示或暗示的意愿时,他的权力 处于最低潮。“   总统针对国会
特朗普总统通过挪用国会拒绝给予的资金,违背了国会的意愿。他签署了一份精心构建的,在两院中获得了超过三分之二多数支持的无法否决的妥协预算法案 。他 接受该法案给他的边界墙的13.75亿美元。
然后,他宣布全国紧急状态再拿出67亿美元用于支付边界墙建设,从而打破了这份协议。
在两个重要的案例中,  最高法院全面禁止国会把任何一项拨款权力或责任给予总统 - 哪怕是自愿的。
国会通过了一项联合决议 宣布特朗普的紧急状态声明无效- 这是国会意志的明确声明 - 这只会为加强 关于总统违反国会意愿的论点将提供更确凿的证据。 保持宪法平衡
如果案件到达最高法院,总统的律师可能会辩称:国会要果断地反对紧急状态,立法者必须以三分之二的票数来否决总统的否决权。
实施这样的否决权推翻要求将会消除 法院的角色。那是因为  如果国会推翻总统否决权,总统所宣布的紧急状态将立即无效。
国会要实现三分之二绝对多数,从历史上看可能性不大。  三分之二的必需票数会让宣布国家紧急状态的总统获得几乎无限的权力,得以把钱拨到他 或者她心仪的领域 - 也许可以达到数千亿美元 。例如,通过补贴风力发电场建设来应对气候变化 。
要求国会来推翻维护总统拨款的总统否决权 将扭转拨款权和宪法的制衡作用。
国会已经声明,将通过支出法案,并考虑表决一项决议,使总统 紧急状态宣言失效。
这样一项决议,即使被总统否决,也将置特朗普总统于杰克逊所宣判的总统权力“最低潮”。
这样有助于保留历史传承下来的灵活性 ,使法院判决在紧急情况下也能尊重国会的投票权 。

好评(0)

差评(0)

评论

改译

2019/3/15 12:08:00

评论(0)