Donald Trump has claimed he could serve a third term as president despite it going against the US constitution. In an interview he said there were ways around the rules and that his supporters wanted him to stay on. But, asks Alex Hannaford, how seriously should we take him and what would it mean for the future of America?

盡管這違反美國憲法，唐納德·特朗普聲稱他可以連任第三任期。在一次采訪中他表示，有辦法繞過規(guī)則（如和萬斯搭檔，在競選總統(tǒng)成功后因其無法履職把總統(tǒng)職位遞補給副總統(tǒng)特朗普等），并稱他的支持者希望他繼續(xù)留任。但亞歷克斯·漢納福特問道：我們應(yīng)該以何種嚴(yán)肅的程度去看待他的言論？這對美國的未來又意味著什么？

when Donald Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon said “I’m a firm believer that President Trump will run and win again in 2028,” last week, it should have been a surprise, but wasn’t. “We’re working on it. … We’ll see what the definition of term limit is,”the dishevelled Bannon told NewsNation. It wasn’t the first time he had mentioned it either. The president’s adviser, who went to prison for refusing to testify before a congressional committee about the 6 January insurrection, suggested it in December. Then, he argued that Trump could circumvent the 22nd amendment, which codifies the two-term limit, because the word “consecutive” is not in the text of the document.

上周，唐納德·特朗普的前首席戰(zhàn)略師史蒂夫·班農(nóng)表示：“我堅信特朗普總統(tǒng)將會在2028年再次參選并獲勝。”這本應(yīng)令人感到驚訝，但實際上并沒有。衣衫不整的班農(nóng)在接受NewsNation采訪時說：“我們正在為此努力……我們會看看任期限制的定義是什么?！边@也不是他第一次提到這個話題。這位曾因拒絕在國會委員會面前就1月6日國會暴亂事件作證而入獄的總統(tǒng)顧問早在去年12月就提出了這一觀點。當(dāng)時，他認(rèn)為特朗普可以繞過第22條修正案——該修正案規(guī)定了總統(tǒng)任期不得超過兩屆——因為該文件中并未出現(xiàn)“連續(xù)”一詞。

Trump has been making his feelings clear too. In an interview with NBC over the weekend, the president said he was “not joking” about seeking a third term and that there are “methods” to staying in office despite a constitutional ban on presidents serving more than two terms in office.

特朗普也明確表達了自己的意向。上周末接受NBC采訪時，這位總統(tǒng)表示他關(guān)于尋求第三任期的表態(tài)"并非玩笑"，盡管憲法禁止總統(tǒng)任職超過兩屆，但存在"可行方法"規(guī)避這一限制繼續(xù)留任。

He has form. Shortly after his election victory last November, the president told congressional Republicans: “I suspect I won’t be running again unless you say, ‘He’s so good we’ve got to figure something else out’.”

他早有先例。在去年十一月的大選勝利后不久，這位總統(tǒng)對國會共和黨人表示：“我想我不會再參選了，除非你們（選民支持者）說，‘他太出色了，我們得想點別的辦法’。”

Then, in January, during the annual House Republican retreat in Florida, he joked with speaker Mike Johnson: “Am I allowed to run again, Mike?” In February, he asked supporters at the White House: “Should I run again? You tell me.” Offhand musings about a third term in office sound less like bluster and more like a blueprint.

然后在今年一月，在佛羅里達州舉行的年度眾議院共和黨閉門會議上，他與議長邁克·約翰遜開玩笑道：“邁克，我還能再參選嗎？”到了二月，他在白宮向支持者們問道：“我應(yīng)該再次參選嗎？你們告訴我?！边@些關(guān)于第三任期的即興言論聽起來不像是夸夸其談，反而更像是一個計劃藍圖。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


The safeguard of the two-term president emerged in direct response to Franklin D Roosevelt’s unprecedented four-term presidency during the Thirties and Forties. Before Roosevelt, the informal precedent set by George Washington – stepping down after two terms – had been respected by every president. Today, the 22nd amendment leaves little room for interpretation: “No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of president, or acted as president, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected president shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

兩屆總統(tǒng)任期的保障措施，是直接針對富蘭克林·羅斯福在二十世紀(jì)三四十年代空前的四屆總統(tǒng)任期而設(shè)立的。在羅斯福之前，由喬治·華盛頓所創(chuàng)立的非正式先例——即任職兩屆后卸任——一直被每位總統(tǒng)所遵守。如今，第22條修正案幾乎沒有留下多少解釋的余地：“任何人當(dāng)選美國總統(tǒng)不得超過兩次；任何人在他人當(dāng)選總統(tǒng)的任期內(nèi)擔(dān)任總統(tǒng)職務(wù)或代理總統(tǒng)超過兩年者，其當(dāng)選總統(tǒng)次數(shù)不得超過一次?！?/b>

Earlier this year, Republican congressman Andy Ogles introduced a House resolution to amend it to enable a president to be elected for up to three terms. Ogles wrote: “President Trump’s decisive leadership stands in stark contrast to the chaos, suffering, and economic decline Americans have endured over the past four years.

今年早些時候，共和黨眾議員安迪·奧格斯提出一項眾議院決議，旨在修改憲法條款，允許總統(tǒng)最多可連任三屆。奧格斯在提案中寫道："特朗普總統(tǒng)果斷的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力，與過去四年間美國人經(jīng)歷的混亂、苦難和經(jīng)濟衰退形成了強烈對比。"
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


“He has proven himself to be the only figure in modern history capable of reversing our nation’s decay and restoring America to greatness, and he must be given the time necessary to accomplish that goal. To that end, I am proposing an amendment to the constitution to revise the limitations imposed by the 22nd amendment on presidential terms. This amendment would allow Trump to serve three terms, ensuring that we can sustain the bold leadership our nation so desperately needs.”

"他（特朗普）已證明自己是現(xiàn)代歷史上唯一能夠扭轉(zhuǎn)國家衰敗、讓美國重歸偉大的人選，因此必須給予他足夠時間來實現(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)。為此，我提議修改憲法，調(diào)整第22修正案對總統(tǒng)任期的限制。這項修正案將允許特朗普連任三屆，確保我們能夠延續(xù)國家亟需的強勢領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力。"
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


It certainly wouldn’t surprise constitutional law professor Michele Goodwin if Trump did actively try to seek a third term by any means necessary: “There has already been a display of lawlessness in the executive orders and other actions taken by the Trump administration,” she says.

憲法法律教授米歇爾·古德溫對特朗普可能不擇手段謀求第三任期并不感到意外。她說："特朗普政府已通過行政令和其他行動展現(xiàn)了對法律的蔑視。"

Indeed, Goodwin, a professor from Georgetown Law, says Trump is making history for things that are anti-democratic and anti-constitutional. “For example when the president said he wants to do away with birthright citizenship, he can’t do away with it with the stroke of his pen. It’s in the American constitution. In the kidnapping of people who have green cards and then secreting them away, making history in mass deportations – these things have been wrongfully reported as if these are just people who are ‘just illegals’, but these are people who are in a legal process for refugee status or towards immigration status. So the fact that they may not have a green card does not mean that they’re not in an appropriate legal status and process.”

這位喬治敦大學(xué)法學(xué)院的教授指出，特朗普正在以反民主和反憲法的行為創(chuàng)造歷史。"例如，當(dāng)總統(tǒng)聲稱要廢除出生公民權(quán)時，他無法僅憑簽署文件就實現(xiàn)這一點——這是憲法明文規(guī)定的內(nèi)容。在綁架持有綠卡的民眾并秘密關(guān)押、大規(guī)模驅(qū)逐移民等事件中，這些違規(guī)行為被錯誤地報道為針對'非法移民'的舉措，但這些人中許多正在合法申請難民身份或移民資格。因此，雖然他們可能未持有綠卡，但并不意味著其法律身份和程序不合法。"

Birthright citizenship is protected in the 14th amendment and courts have blocked its loss for now. A Ronald Reagan-appointed judge issued an emergency order initially halting Trump’s executive order, saying, “I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear.”

出生公民權(quán)受到第14修正案的保護，法院目前已阻止了其被剝奪的可能性。一位由羅納德·里根任命的法官發(fā)布了一項緊急命令，暫時叫停了特朗普的行政命令，并表示：“我擔(dān)任法官已經(jīng)超過40年，我不記得還有哪個案件所涉及的問題像這次一樣明確。”

Other legal scholars have dismissed the idea of running for a third term as impossible, but for Trump’s most ardent supporters, constitutional roadblocks have rarely been a concern. In fact, the mere suggestion that he might seek to extend his grip on power has already energised his base.

其他法律學(xué)者則認(rèn)為競選第三任期的想法是不可能實現(xiàn)的，但對于特朗普最狂熱的支持者來說，憲法障礙很少成為他們的顧慮。事實上，僅僅是他可能尋求延長權(quán)力掌控的暗示，就已經(jīng)激發(fā)了他的堅實支持者。

And there is little political opposition in sight. Robert Reich, who was labour secretary under president Bill Clinton and served in the Ford and Carter administrations, headlined a recent Substack post: Where the HELL are the Democrats? “It should be the Democrats’ moment,” he wrote, “Democrats are nowhere … Almost invisible. They’re squandering this opportunity.” Reich points out that some Democratic operatives are telling Democrats to “play dead”; to give the Trump administration and congressional Republicans who support him “enough rope to figuratively hang themselves”. The midterm elections aren’t until November of 2026. Keep your powder dry. “Rubbish,” says Reich. “Tens of millions of Americans believe there’s no real Democratic opposition to Trump. They feel demoralised and defeated.”

而且目前幾乎看不到政治上的反對力量。曾在比爾·克林頓總統(tǒng)任下?lián)蝿诠げ块L，并在福特和卡特政府中任職的羅伯特·賴克，在最近的一篇Substack文章中以醒目的標(biāo)題寫道：“民主黨人到底在哪里？”他寫道：“這本應(yīng)是民主黨的時刻，但民主黨人卻無處可尋……幾乎隱形。他們正在浪費這個機會?！辟嚳酥赋?，一些民主黨的策略人士正告訴民主黨人保持“裝死”；這讓特朗普政府及支持他的國會共和黨人“有足夠的繩子來把自己吊死”。中期選舉要到2026年11月才會舉行，因此有人建議“保存實力”。對此，賴克直言：“胡扯。數(shù)千萬美國人認(rèn)為，對特朗普沒有真正的民主反對力量。他們感到沮喪和失敗。”

Goodwin says the Trump administration is moving in coercive ways into legal spaces. Universities have been pressured to change their curriculum (Columbia University is placing its Middle Eastern, South Asian and African studies departments into “academic receivership” at the insistence of the Trump administration), and this week vice-president JD Vance was put in charge of “removing improper ideology” from the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which comes under the Smithsonian Institute.

古德溫表示，特朗普政府正以強制性的方式進入法律領(lǐng)域。大學(xué)被施壓更改課程（哥倫比亞大學(xué)在特朗普政府的要求下，將其中東、南亞和非洲研究系置于“學(xué)術(shù)托管”之下），而本周副總統(tǒng)JD萬斯被指派負責(zé)從隸屬于史密森尼學(xué)會的非裔美國人歷史與文化國家博物館中“清除不恰當(dāng)?shù)囊庾R形態(tài)”。

Whether it is a threat against law schools, or banning major law firms who have worked for his “enemies” from receiving government contracts, as of this month there are now 60 universities “under investigation” by Trump’s Department of Education “for antisemitic discrimination and harassment”.

無論是威脅法學(xué)院，還是禁止為他的“敵人”工作過的大型律師事務(wù)所獲得政府合同，截至本月，已有60所大學(xué)因“反猶太歧視和騷擾”而受到特朗普管轄下的教育部的“調(diào)查”。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


“When people feel threatened, as some people are,” Goodwin says, “they begin making concessions – unnecessary concessions.” In the past, she says, we could rely on the unbiased, fair judiciary to take care of things, but even successful lawsuits hold little weight with the new administration. “The difference now is there’s a certain level of defiance [on the part of the Trump administration]. And that becomes a problem.”

古德溫說：“當(dāng)人們感到受到威脅時，就像有些人現(xiàn)在這樣，他們會開始做出讓步——這是一種不必要的讓步?！彼硎?，過去我們可以依賴公正、公平的司法體系來解決問題，但目前即使成功的訴訟對新政府也幾乎沒有影響力?！艾F(xiàn)在的不同之處在于，特朗普政府表現(xiàn)出對司法判決一定程度的蔑視。而這成為一個問題。”

A house set aflame can be decimated in no time ... This dismantling, the firing of people, the gutting of various institutions, may take decades in some instances to rebuild and to restore.

一場大火可以瞬間摧毀一棟房子……這種拆解、裁員以及對各種機構(gòu)的掏空，可能需要數(shù)十年的時間才能重建和恢復(fù)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


Michele Goodwin：Law professors are fearful, she says. “There are those in the legal profession who saw in the first week of his presidency there had already been sufficient unconstitutional executive orders that caused concern that there was a crisis of democracy.” With the help of his henchman Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency, Trump is also attempting to shut down agencies created by Congress, placing 4,200 staff at the Agency for International Development on leave in February, and firing 1,600 from their jobs. Lawyers said Congress would be able to stop doge but that clearly didn’t happen. “There are people afraid right now.”

米歇爾·古德溫表示，法學(xué)教授們感到擔(dān)憂?！胺山绲囊恍┤耸吭谔乩势湛偨y(tǒng)任職期的第一周就已看到，他已經(jīng)發(fā)布了足夠多的違憲行政命令，這引發(fā)了人們對民主危機的擔(dān)憂?！痹诎Ｂ　ゑR斯克（他的幫手）和“政府效率部”的協(xié)助下，特朗普還試圖關(guān)閉由國會創(chuàng)建的機構(gòu)，比如今年2月讓美國國際開發(fā)署的4200名員工被迫休假，并解雇了其中的1600人。律師們曾表示國會能夠阻止這些行為，但顯然并未成功。“現(xiàn)在有很多人對此感到害怕。”

The problem, she says, is “it’s much easier to destroy something than it is to build it. A house set aflame can be decimated in no time. And it’s not just about recreating the physical structure. It’s the character. It’s remembering how people who respected each other worked together. This dismantling, the firing of people, the gutting of various institutions, may take decades in some instances to rebuild and to restore. And it will mean a commitment from our government to do so at a time when the government will be economically distressed.”

她指出，問題在于，“摧毀某樣?xùn)|西遠比建造它容易得多。一棟房子一旦起火，可能瞬間化為灰燼。而這不僅僅是重建物理結(jié)構(gòu)的問題，還包括其內(nèi)在特質(zhì)——那些曾經(jīng)彼此尊重并合作共事的人們要如何重新找回過去那種關(guān)系。這種拆解、裁員以及對各種機構(gòu)的掏空，在某些情況下可能需要數(shù)十年的時間才能重建和恢復(fù)。而這也意味著，我們的政府需要在經(jīng)濟困境中承諾投入資源來完成這一任務(wù)?！?/b>

Goodwin says the US is in a “thought experiment” right now. She says Steve Bannon spoke a while back about “flooding the zone”. Bannon was talking to writer Michael Lewis in 2018 when he said: “The Democrats don’t matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with s***.”

古德溫說，美國目前正處于一種“思想實驗”中。她提到史蒂夫·班農(nóng)不久前談到了“信息轟炸區(qū)”的概念。班農(nóng)在2018年與作家邁克爾·劉易斯對話時曾說：“民主黨無關(guān)緊要，真正的對手是媒體。而對付他們的辦法就是用垃圾信息淹沒他們?！?/b>

Goodwin reckons there’s a psychological component to this. “One analogy that comes to mind is domestic violence. In a family environment where somebody is flooding the zone with physical and mental abuse – various forms of coercion so you don’t know what to expect when that person comes home at night – it’s destabilising; you’re fearful; you’re so overwhelmed by it. But the overwhelming aspect of it works – and that’s what it’s intended to do. [What Trump is doing] is meant to destabilise people; to cause a kind of paralysis. People are so overwhelmed they lose sight of what to work on, what to do.”

古德溫認(rèn)為這其中存在心理層面的因素?！拔蚁氲降囊粋€類比是家庭暴力。在一個家庭環(huán)境中，如果有人通過身體和精神虐待、各種形式的脅迫來‘信息轟炸’你——讓你無法預(yù)知這個人晚上回家時會發(fā)生什么——這是令人不安的；你會感到恐懼，被壓得喘不過氣來。而這種壓倒性的策略恰恰奏效了——這就是它的目的所在。特朗普正在做的事情旨在讓人們感到不安，造成一種癱瘓狀態(tài)。人們被壓得喘不過氣來，以至于忘記了該做什么，該如何應(yīng)對。”

While Goodwin calls the current situation “dystopic”, she believes help might come from a somewhat unlikely source – the Supreme Court. At the beginning of the month, chief justice John Roberts and justice Amy Coney Barrett, nominated by Trump during his first term, joined the liberal wing of the court in denying the administration’s efforts to freeze $2bn to pay foreign aid organisations for work they had already completed. In response, alt-right Maga activist Jack Posobiec said that Barrett was a DEI hire.

盡管古德溫稱當(dāng)前局勢為“反烏托邦式”，但她認(rèn)為幫助可能來自一個不太可能的來源——最高法院。本月初，首席大法官約翰·羅伯茨和特朗普第一任期內(nèi)提名的大法官艾米·科尼·巴雷特加入了最高法院自由派陣營，駁回了政府試圖凍結(jié)20億美元支付給已完成工作的外國援助組織的努力。作為回應(yīng)，另類右翼Maga活動家杰克·波索貝茨稱巴雷特獲得職位是基于“多元化、公平性和包容性（DEI）任命”。

Those who had worried the Supreme Court’s lurch to the right, and its contentious ruling that presidents are immune from criminal liability for actions taken in office, would mean Trump would be given carte blanche to run roughshod over the constitution might be proved wrong. In mid-March, Roberts again defied Trump in his calls to remove a judge, in what the Associated Press called “an extraordinary display of conflict between the executive and judiciary branches”.

那些曾擔(dān)心最高法院急劇右傾，以及其爭議性裁決（即總統(tǒng)在職期間的行為享有刑事豁免權(quán)）會賦予特朗普肆意踐踏憲法的“空白支票”的人，可能會發(fā)現(xiàn)自己錯了。3月中旬，羅伯茨再次違背特朗普的意愿，拒絕了他要求撤換一名法官的呼吁。美聯(lián)社稱此為“行政與司法部門之間的一次非同尋常的沖突展示”。

In a democracy under siege, the Supreme Court is the last line of defence. The question is, considering its make-up, whether it will be up to the task hit after hit. Or, when the time comes for a third-term run, will so much have gone up in flames that people will forget where the hosepipe is or even where to point it?

在遭受圍困的民主制度中，最高法院是最后一道防線。問題是，考慮到其構(gòu)成，它是否能夠一次又一次地勝任這一任務(wù)？或者，當(dāng)?shù)谌纹诟傔x到來之前，最高法院是否就已經(jīng)被燃燒殆盡，以至于人們甚至忘記了滅火器在哪里，更不用說如何使用它了？