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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The signing of the Constitution of the United States. Architect of the Capitol; Howard Chandler Christy, artist The national emergency
好评(0)
差评(0)
评论
改译
对照查看
浙公安网备33100302000026号
