美國憲法應(yīng)該改革嗎?(二)
Should the US Constitution be reformed?譯文簡(jiǎn)介
網(wǎng)友:它在相當(dāng)定期的基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)行了改革。事實(shí)上,今天,11月20日,標(biāo)志著這種情況第一次發(fā)生(或者至少是這個(gè)過程實(shí)際開始的日期)。這是一個(gè)相當(dāng)緩慢的過程)。1789年11月20日,新澤西州成為第一個(gè)批準(zhǔn)憲法修正案的州。另外11個(gè)州花了大約兩年的時(shí)間批準(zhǔn)了其中的10項(xiàng)修正案,從而形成了《權(quán)利法案》......
正文翻譯
Should the US Constitution be reformed?
美國憲法應(yīng)該改革嗎?
美國憲法應(yīng)該改革嗎?
評(píng)論翻譯
很贊 ( 1 )
收藏
It is reformed, on a fairly regular basis. In fact today, November 20, marks the very first time this ever happened (or at least the date on which the process actually began . . . it's a pretty slow process). On November 20, 1789, New Jersey became the first state to ratify the first proposed Amendments to the Constitution. It took about two years for eleven other states to ratify 10 of these proposed Amendments, thus creating the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution has survived for so long as the frxwork for our governance precisely because it is designed to be modified and adapt to changing circumstances, but at the same time to make such modification difficult to accomplish without overwhelming support. The frxrs allowed for Amendments to the Constitution to be added to it, but these Amendments had to first be approved by two thirds majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and then go on to win approval in three fourths of all State legislatures.
I could suggest all sorts of specific amendments that I think would make this country run better, but that's not my point. the point is that the frxwork is already in place for amending the Constitution. It has happened about two dozen times over the course of the last two centuries.
I will add, though, that Amending the Constitution should not be the first choice to address any current crisis. It's a fairly radical procedure. The regular legislative process could do a lot . . . if we had an informed electorate.
它在相當(dāng)定期的基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)行了改革。事實(shí)上,今天,11月20日,標(biāo)志著這種情況第一次發(fā)生(或者至少是這個(gè)過程實(shí)際開始的日期)。這是一個(gè)相當(dāng)緩慢的過程)。1789年11月20日,新澤西州成為第一個(gè)批準(zhǔn)憲法修正案的州。另外11個(gè)州花了大約兩年的時(shí)間批準(zhǔn)了其中的10項(xiàng)修正案,從而形成了《權(quán)利法案》。
《憲法》作為我們的治理框架得以長久存在,正是因?yàn)樗菫榱诵薷暮瓦m應(yīng)不斷變化的環(huán)境而設(shè)計(jì)的,但同時(shí)也使這種修改在沒有壓倒性支持的情況下難以實(shí)現(xiàn)。制憲者允許將憲法修正案添加到憲法中,但這些修正案必須首先獲得眾議院和參議院三分之二的多數(shù)票批準(zhǔn),然后才能獲得四分之三州立法機(jī)構(gòu)的批準(zhǔn)。
我可以提出各種各樣的具體修正案,我認(rèn)為這會(huì)使這個(gè)國家運(yùn)行得更好,但這不是我的重點(diǎn)。關(guān)鍵是修改憲法的框架已經(jīng)到位。在過去的兩個(gè)世紀(jì)里,這種情況發(fā)生了二十多次。
不過,我要補(bǔ)充一點(diǎn),修改憲法不應(yīng)該是解決當(dāng)前任何危機(jī)的第一選擇。這是一個(gè)相當(dāng)激進(jìn)的程序。正常的立法程序可以做很多事情,問題在于我們的選民是否知情。
Should the US "modernize" the Constitution?
No
Modernizing would be the euphemism for rewriting the U.S. Constitution with positive rights.
Mr Obama put it this way.
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
With recent historical failures of Greece, Venezuela, Cuba and Russia, and the turning away of China, we have real world examples of the jeopardy America would be in if we made this change.
Modernizing is a deception.
美國應(yīng)該讓憲法“現(xiàn)代化”嗎?
不
現(xiàn)代化是用正權(quán)利重寫美國憲法的委婉說法。
奧巴馬是這樣說的。
但是,最高法院從未涉足財(cái)富再分配問題,以及社會(huì)中的政治和經(jīng)濟(jì)正義等更基本的問題。在這種程度上,盡管我認(rèn)為人們?cè)噲D描述沃倫法院的激進(jìn)性,但它并沒有那么激進(jìn)。它并沒有擺脫開國元?jiǎng)讉冊(cè)趹椃ㄖ性O(shè)置的基本約束,至少在解釋憲法時(shí)是這樣的,沃倫法院也以同樣的方式解釋憲法,一般來說,憲法是一個(gè)消極自由的憲章。說了各州和聯(lián)邦政府不能隨意修改,但沒有說明聯(lián)邦政府或州政府必須代表你去做什么。
鑒于希臘、委內(nèi)瑞拉、古巴和俄羅斯最近的歷史失敗,以及中國的拒絕,我們有現(xiàn)實(shí)世界的例子,說明如果我們做出這種改變,美國將面臨什么樣的危險(xiǎn)。
現(xiàn)代化是一種欺騙。
Is the U.S. Constitution outdated?
The concepts in it are not outdated. It was designed to limit government’s power and to put mechanisms in place to prevent abuse of power. The bigger problem we have is not that the Constitution is outdated, but rather the government is sextively reinterpreting the Constitution to give itself more power, thereby eroding the safe guards the Founding Fathers attempted to put in place.
A lot of the things that are inconvenient in the Constitution, like checks and balances, dual jurisdiction of the states and federal government, the electoral college and the Bill of Rights were put there for a reason. Ignoring such provisions can lead to a consolidation of power, which is great if you are the ones who are in power, and not so great for everyone else.
And the Constitution has actually been changed twenty-seven (27) times through the amendment process. So it has changed with the times, and will continue to do so. The Constitution can change and adapt with the times through the amendment process.
The important thing is to not dismantle the checks and balances in the Constitution. Yet, many people who do not understand the purpose of certain provisions unintentionally propose to do just that.
Any streamlining will result in tyranny by the elite, or tyranny by the majority. Our government was designed to be decentralized and slow for a reason. We may not always like that, but it is what protects us from abuse of power.
If nothing else, we need more enforcement of the Constitution, rather than replacing it with something else.
美國憲法過時(shí)了嗎?
其中的概念并不過時(shí)。它旨在限制政府的權(quán)力,并建立防止濫用權(quán)力的機(jī)制。我們面臨的更大問題不是憲法已經(jīng)過時(shí),而是政府有選擇地重新解釋憲法,賦予自己更多的權(quán)力,從而侵蝕開國元?jiǎng)讉冊(cè)噲D建立的安全屏障。
憲法中許多不便之處,如制衡、州和聯(lián)邦政府的雙重管轄權(quán)、選舉團(tuán)和《權(quán)利法案》都是有原因的。忽視這些條款可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致權(quán)力的鞏固,如果你是掌權(quán)者,這很好,但對(duì)其他人來說就不那么好了。
事實(shí)上,憲法在修正過程中已經(jīng)修改了二十七(27)次。因此,它已經(jīng)隨著時(shí)代的變化而變化,并將繼續(xù)被修改。憲法可以通過修憲來改變和適應(yīng)時(shí)代。
重要的是不要破壞憲法中的制衡機(jī)制。然而,很多不明白某些條文目的的人,卻無意間提出要這樣做。
任何精簡(jiǎn)都會(huì)導(dǎo)致精英的暴政,或者大多數(shù)人的暴政。我們的政府被設(shè)計(jì)成權(quán)力下放和行動(dòng)遲緩是有原因的。我們可能并不總是喜歡這樣,但這正是保護(hù)我們免受權(quán)力濫用的原因。
如果沒有別的,我們需要更多地執(zhí)行憲法,而不是用其他東西來取代它。
Suffice it to say now that the Constitution itself outlines the process for reform in Article V. That there have been only 27 official "reforms" in over 200 years shows that the proposed "reform" must have wide-spread support, both in Congress and in the States (this doesn't count the ill-fated original 13th Amendment "Titles of Nobility" which appears to have been ratified and then mysteriously removed). Unfortunately, the Constitution has been unofficially “reformed” countless times through Supreme Court opinion.
One reason there is mounting pressure to "bring the Constitution up to date" is that people have not been taught the underlying principles that informed the original document. These principles must be recaptured and taught in our schools. They are eternally valid and without an understanding of them, much of the document cannot be properly understood.
Another reason for the mounting pressure for "reform" is the realization that the federal government has truly become the "Leviathan" of Thomas Hobbes fame and has been allowed to burst the limits the original Constitution placed on it, thanks largely to liberal/progressive interpretations by the Court. Now the feds intrude into areas of our lives that would never have been countenanced by the frxrs.
Putting the federal government back into its "enumerated powers" box will be difficult, but not impossible.
現(xiàn)在只需說,憲法本身在第五條中概述了修正進(jìn)程。200多年來,正式條文只有27次“修正”,這表明擬議的“修正”必須得到廣泛支持,無論是在國會(huì)還是在各州(這還不包括命運(yùn)多舛的最初第13修正案“貴族頭銜”,該修正案似乎已經(jīng)被批準(zhǔn),然后神秘地被刪除)。不幸的是,憲法已經(jīng)通過最高法院的意見被非正式地“修正”了無數(shù)次。
要求“更新憲法”的壓力越來越大的一個(gè)原因是,人們沒有被教導(dǎo)原始文件的基本原則。這些原則必須在我們的學(xué)校里重新掌握和傳授。它們永遠(yuǎn)有效,如果不了解它們,文件的大部分內(nèi)容就無法得到正確解讀。
“修正”壓力越來越大的另一個(gè)原因是,人們意識(shí)到聯(lián)邦政府已經(jīng)真正成為托馬斯·霍布斯(Thomas Hobbes)那著名的“海怪”,并被允許突破原憲法對(duì)其的限制,這在很大程度上要?dú)w功于法院的自由/進(jìn)步解釋。現(xiàn)在聯(lián)邦政府侵入了我們生活的各個(gè)領(lǐng)域這是制憲者絕不會(huì)允許的。
讓聯(lián)邦政府回歸其“被列舉的權(quán)力”將是困難的,但并非不可能。
Why has the US never changed its Constitution?
The US Constitution was deliberately designed to be timeless by being only a blueprint for government and not an instrument of policy. Even the fundamental rights that it guarantees are in amendments rather than in the main body. Because it wasn't written in response to specific circumstances, it doesn't need to change dramatically when circumstances change.
However, this isn't to say that it doesn't contain errors. It should have been explicit from the beginning that it applies to the whole nation and not just to the federal government. That wasn't decided until the 1930s. It also should have banned the filibuster and gerrymandering, as both of these are attacks on democracy, irrespective of circumstances.
為什么美國從未修改過憲法?
美國憲法被刻意設(shè)計(jì)成永恒的,因?yàn)樗皇钦乃{(lán)圖,而不是政策的工具。即使是它所保障的基本權(quán)利也在修正案中,而不是在主體中。因?yàn)樗皇轻槍?duì)特定情況而寫的,所以它不需要隨著情況的變化而急劇變化。
然而,這并不是說它不包含錯(cuò)誤。它從一開始就應(yīng)該明確地適用于整個(gè)國家,而不僅僅是聯(lián)邦政府。直到20世紀(jì)30年代才做出決定,它還應(yīng)該禁止阻撓議事和不公正的選區(qū)劃分,因?yàn)闊o論在什么情況下,這兩種行為都是在攻擊民主。
It is often said that the United States federal government is challenged with significant gridlock. Do you think this will resolve itself on its own or do you think the constitution itself needs to be changed?
The Constitution is designed to be slow: so that aspect is deliberate. (Especially the Senate)
The worrying aspect is the Constitution assumed politicians would be reasonable men, who would decide on issues, negotiate and reach the best answer.
That is not the same as today, with strong factional party blocks, big money PACs and gerrymandered constiuencies.
As a result, there is less && less compromise or cross-party voting, far more of "forget the center - I just need 50%+1" and appeal to the base.
The gerrymandering and guaranteed majorities (and hence guarnteed disenfranchised minorities) is particularly egregious.
人們常說,美國聯(lián)邦政府嚴(yán)重的“僵化”。你認(rèn)為這會(huì)自行解決嗎?還是認(rèn)為憲法本身需要修改?
《憲法》的設(shè)計(jì)是緩慢的:所以這方面是經(jīng)過深思熟慮的。(尤其是參議院)
令人擔(dān)憂的是,憲法假定政治家都是通情達(dá)理的人,他們會(huì)就問題做出決定,進(jìn)行談判并達(dá)成最佳答案。
這與今天不同,有強(qiáng)大的派系政黨集團(tuán)、掌握大筆資金的政治行動(dòng)委員會(huì)和選區(qū)劃分不公的憲法。
因此,妥協(xié)和跨黨派投票越來越少,更多的是“忘記中間派——我只需要50%+1”,并吸引基層選民。
不公正的選區(qū)劃分和多數(shù)人得到保障(因此少數(shù)人喪失公民權(quán)的現(xiàn)狀也得到保障)尤其令人震驚。
Worse, politically controlled redistricting helps drive the hyper-partisanship of politics. In turbulent political times, when large swings in the vote are possible, party bosses feel driven to construct safer seats than they once used to need. With fewer seats changing hands on election day, this tends to shift the focus of politics away from the general election itself, and on to the primaries in which the parties sext their candidates. The turnout in primaries is tiny, typically only between 10% and 20% of voters, and tends to be disproportionately composed of activists. So those sexted tend to be politically slanted to the left or the right extremes.
This, in turn, drives the gridlock that affects Washington.
The most important change would not be constitional, but making sure that Representatives were actually representative, by having an independent boundary commission with teeth that set House consituencies in ways that made them both "sensibl" and competively.
That does not work everywhere (there are always safe seats) but it would be an easy change that would have a major impact, would better serve democracy (remove a lot of those permanent minorities) and would reward consensus, negotiation and results.
最近,我們已經(jīng)寫了很多關(guān)于美國民主內(nèi)部陰險(xiǎn)的瘋狂,或者被稱為不公正劃分選區(qū)。
更糟糕的是,政治控制的選區(qū)重劃有助于推動(dòng)政治上的極端黨派之爭(zhēng)。在動(dòng)蕩的政治時(shí)代,當(dāng)選票可能出現(xiàn)大幅波動(dòng)時(shí),政黨領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人感到有必要建造比過去更安全的席位。隨著選舉日席位的減少,這往往會(huì)將政治焦點(diǎn)從大選本身轉(zhuǎn)移到政黨選擇候選人的初選上。初選的投票率很少,通常只占選民的10%到20%,而且往往不成比例地由積極分子組成。因此,那些被選中的人往往在政治上傾向于左翼或右翼極端。
這反過來又造成了影響聯(lián)邦政府的“僵化”。
最重要的改變不是憲法上的,而是通過設(shè)立一個(gè)獨(dú)立的邊界委員會(huì),確保眾議院的一致性既“明智”又有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力,從而確保眾議員真正具有代表性。
這并不適用于所有地方(總有安全席位),但這將是很容易被認(rèn)可的修正,而且將產(chǎn)生重大影響,會(huì)更好地服務(wù)于民主(讓少數(shù)人(喪失公民權(quán))的現(xiàn)狀永久消失),并理所當(dāng)然地獲得共識(shí)、協(xié)商談判和產(chǎn)生結(jié)果。
Will the Constitution of the United States ever be revised?
The US Constitution already has been revised 27 times.
The Article V of the United States Constitution states:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
Actually, the amendments are the main way which Constitution is revised, it's very natural that a Constitution be revised and get added an amendment, in fact, an Amendment is a kind of upgrade that Constitution receives to attend social demands of a society that is constantly changing. America is not more the same country that it was when Constitution was written: The Bill of Rights was passed; Slavery was abolished; Black people and women gained the right to vote; Senators started to be elected by the popular vote, not by the State Legislature anymore; the current Federal income tax was introduced; the Presidential inauguration was changed for the January 20th instead the old inauguration day: March 4th; and the President's term started to have a two term-limit (no person can be reelected US President more than one time anymore, this Amendment was passed to prevent that someone tries FDR's strategy of a 4 times term, but it's also valid remember that FDR broke up the 2-term tradition established by George Washington).
美國憲法會(huì)被修改嗎?
美國憲法已經(jīng)修訂了27次。
美國憲法第五條規(guī)定:
“國會(huì)應(yīng)在兩院各2/3議員認(rèn)為必要時(shí),提出本憲法的修正案,或根據(jù)全國2/3州議會(huì)的請(qǐng)求召開公議提出修正案。以上任何一種情況下提出的修正案,經(jīng)全國的州議會(huì)或3/4州的制憲會(huì)議批準(zhǔn),即成為本憲法的一部分而發(fā)生實(shí)際效力;采用哪種批準(zhǔn)方式可由國會(huì)提出。但在1808年前所制定的修正案不得以任何形式影響本憲法第一條第九款之第一、第四兩項(xiàng);任何一州,未經(jīng)其同意,不得被剝奪它在參議院中的平等投票權(quán)?!?br /> 實(shí)際上,修正案是修改憲法的主要方式,修改憲法并增加修正案是很自然的事,事實(shí)上,修正案就是憲法為滿足不斷變化的社會(huì)的社會(huì)需求而接受的一種升級(jí)。美國不再是憲法制定時(shí)的那個(gè)國家:《權(quán)利法案》獲得通過;奴隸制被廢除;黑人和婦女獲得了選舉權(quán);參議員開始由普選產(chǎn)生,不再由州議會(huì)選舉;引入了現(xiàn)行的聯(lián)邦所得稅;總統(tǒng)就職典禮改為1月20日,而不是原來的就職典禮日期:3月4日;總統(tǒng)的任期開始有兩屆限制(沒有人可以連任一次以上,通過這項(xiàng)修正案是為了防止有人嘗試羅斯福的四屆任期策略,但記住,羅斯福打破了喬治·華盛頓確立的兩屆任期傳統(tǒng),這也是有效的)。
In short, yes the United States Constitution can be revised, but the revision process of the US Constitution is an essentially political process and can pass for a lot of polemics and discussion in Congress and in American society and also take a very, very long time to be passed, the 27th amendment took almost 200 years to get passed! The last Time that the US Constitution was revised (got an Amendment) was in 1992 when the 27th Amendment was passed. In fact, America hadn't revise its Constitution for almost 30 years.
所以,是的,美國憲法有可能被修改并獲得新的修正案,但要想通過修正案,它必須得到3/4的州立法機(jī)構(gòu)的批準(zhǔn),目前批準(zhǔn)修正案的州數(shù)為38個(gè)(50個(gè)州中的3/4,即75%),一個(gè)州可以批準(zhǔn)的同一修正案很容易被另一個(gè)州否決(例如:想要廢除第二修正案的修正案可以很容易地被加利福尼亞州、夏威夷州或紐約州等進(jìn)步自由主義州通過,但同樣的修正案也可以被懷俄明州、田納西州或得克薩斯州等保守派州拒絕,甚至被賓夕法尼亞州、佛羅里達(dá)州或俄亥俄州這樣的搖擺州甚至是密歇根州、科羅拉多州和威斯康星州這樣的溫和進(jìn)步州拒絕,甚至被誹謗,可能一項(xiàng)想要廢除第二修正案的修正案永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)被通過,并且會(huì)引起很多爭(zhēng)論)。
簡(jiǎn)言之,是的,美國憲法可以修改,但美國憲法的修改過程本質(zhì)上是一個(gè)政治過程,可以在國會(huì)和美國社會(huì)引起很多爭(zhēng)論和討論,也需要非常非常長的時(shí)間才能通過,第27條修正案花了近200年才通過!美國憲法最后一次修改(獲得修正案)是在1992年,當(dāng)時(shí)通過了第27條修正案。事實(shí)上,美國已經(jīng)有將近30年沒有修改憲法了。
Can the U.S. Constitution be changed?
Yes, and it has been. 27 times (out of 33 proposals).
But the process is, by design, is difficult. Put simply, it must be proposed by two-thirds of both the House and Senate.
Then it must be ratified by three-quarters of the states — currently 38.
It’s a very long and drawn out process that can take years.
美國憲法可以修改嗎?
是的,確實(shí)可以被修改,被修改27次(33次提案)。
但是,這個(gè)過程本來就很困難。簡(jiǎn)而言之,它必須由參眾兩院三分之二的議員提出。
然后,它必須得到四分之三的州(目前是38個(gè))的批準(zhǔn)。
這是一個(gè)非常漫長的過程,可能需要數(shù)年時(shí)間。