【改組法院】羅斯福第9次爐邊談話 1937年3月9日
1937年3月9日，羅斯福總統(tǒng)為減小來自最高法院的改革阻力，決定對美國最高法院進(jìn)行改組，他先是抨擊了最高法院對國家不負(fù)責(zé)任，然后提出增加首席大法官的數(shù)量，從而將自己的支持者安排進(jìn)最高法院。這一行為直接撼動了美國三權(quán)分立的政治基礎(chǔ)，因此羅斯福的行為不僅在當(dāng)時遭到了大量反對，時至今日也飽受爭議。許反對者稱羅斯福是一個獨(dú)裁者，但羅斯福的支持者還是壓過了反對者，最終最高法院向羅斯福妥協(xié)，一位反對改革的大法官辭職，被羅斯福用自己的支持者替代。
Last Thursday I described in detail certain economic problems which everyone admits now face the Nation. For the many messages which have come to me after that speech, and which it is physically impossible to answer individually, I take this means of saying "thank you."
上周四，我的談?wù)摿巳吮M皆知的話題，即我國面臨的經(jīng)濟(jì)困難相關(guān)細(xì)節(jié)。那次講話過后，我收到了許多來信，我無法逐一回復(fù)大家，就在此統(tǒng)一向大家說一聲“謝謝”。
Tonight, sitting at my desk in the White House, I make my first radio report to the people in my second term of office.
今晚，我坐在白宮的辦工作前，向大家發(fā)表我第二屆總統(tǒng)任期的首次廣播匯報。
I am reminded of that evening in March, four years ago, when I made my first radio report to you. We were then in the midst of the great banking crisis.
我想起了4年前3月份的那個晚上，我第一次向大家發(fā)表廣播匯報的場景。當(dāng)時我們深陷巨大的銀行危機(jī)中。
Soon after, with the authority of the Congress, we asked the Nation to turn over all of its privately held gold, dollar for dollar, to the Government of the United States.
Today's recovery proves how right that policy was.
但不久，國會就授權(quán)我們用美元將私人持有的黃金全部收為美國政府公有。今天我國的復(fù)興，證明了這一決策之正確。
But when, almost two years later, it came before the Supreme Court its constitutionality was upheld only by a five-to-four vote. The change of one vote would have thrown all the affairs of this great Nation back into hopeless chaos. In effect, four Justices ruled that the right under a private contract to exact a pound of flesh was more sacred than the main objectives of the Constitution to establish an enduring Nation.
但約兩年后，當(dāng)這么一個正確的決策遞交至最高法院進(jìn)行裁決時，其合憲性卻僅以5對4的微弱優(yōu)勢通過。一票之差，便足以將我們這個大國的全部事務(wù)攪得天昏地暗。也就是說，有4位大法官認(rèn)為，一磅肉的私人合同，比美國憲法中“建立一個長治久安國家”的主要目標(biāo)還要重要神圣。
In 1933 you and I knew that we must never let our economic system get completely out of joint again - that we could not afford to take the risk of another great depression.
早在1933年，你我就深知，我們絕不能再讓經(jīng)濟(jì)體制完全脫節(jié)——大蕭條卷土重來，我們實(shí)在承受不來。
We also became convinced that the only way to avoid a repetition of those dark days was to have a government with power to prevent and to cure the abuses and the inequalities which had thrown that system out of joint.
而且我們相信，要防止那一黑暗時期卷土重來，唯一的方法就是賦予政府足夠的權(quán)利，去預(yù)防并糾正那些讓經(jīng)濟(jì)制度脫節(jié)的弊病和不公。
We then began a program of remedying those abuses and inequalities - to give balance and stability to our economic system - to make it bomb-proof against the causes of 1929.
于是后來，政府就開始計(jì)劃修正這些弊病和不公——重建經(jīng)濟(jì)制度的平衡性與穩(wěn)定性——使其能夠抵御1929年的經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)。
Today we are only part-way through that program - and recovery is speeding up to a point where the dangers of 1929 are again becoming possible, not this week or month perhaps, but within a year or two.
時至今日，計(jì)劃尚未完成——國家加速復(fù)興到了一定程度，于是1929年的危機(jī)又如雨后春筍般涌現(xiàn)，或許這些危機(jī)不會在一周內(nèi)爆發(fā)，也不會在一個月內(nèi)爆發(fā)，但是一年后呢，兩年后，我們不好說。
National laws are needed to complete that program. Individual or local or state effort alone cannot protect us in 1937 any better than ten years ago.
所以我們需要國家立法來完成這一計(jì)劃。時至1937年，僅靠個人、地區(qū)、各州都無法再有效地保護(hù)我們了。
It will take time - and plenty of time - to work out our remedies administratively even after legislation is passed. To complete our program of protection in time, therefore, we cannot delay one moment in making certain that our National Government has power to carry through.
即便是法案通過后，我們也需要時間——大量的時間——來制定修正弊端的政策。所以，為及時完成我們的保護(hù)經(jīng)濟(jì)計(jì)劃，我們一刻也不能拖延，必須火速確立聯(lián)邦政府的執(zhí)行權(quán)。
Four years ago action did not come until the eleventh hour. It was almost too late.
4年前，我們采取行動時，直至最后一刻才得到批準(zhǔn)。險些誤了大事。
If we learned anything from the depression we will not allow ourselves to run around in new circles of futile discussion and debate, always postponing the day of decision.
如果我們在大蕭條中學(xué)到了什么教訓(xùn)，那就是我們不能再徒勞地用搪塞詭辯繞圈子，遲遲不做出決定了。
The American people have learned from the depression. For in the last three national elections an overwhelming majority of them voted a mandate that the Congress and the President begin the task of providing that protection - not after long years of debate, but now.
美國人民當(dāng)然從大蕭條中吸取了教訓(xùn)。因?yàn)樽罱稳珖x舉中，絕大多數(shù)人民都投票授權(quán)國會和總統(tǒng)采取行動保護(hù)經(jīng)濟(jì)——他們要求的不是商議多年后再采取行動，而是立刻馬上。
The Courts, however, have cast doubts on the ability of the elected Congress to protect us against catastrophe by meeting squarely our modern social and economic conditions.
然而，法院卻表現(xiàn)得不怎么信任人民選舉出的國會，懷疑國會是否有能力滿足現(xiàn)代的社會經(jīng)濟(jì)需求，從而保護(hù)人民免遭災(zāi)難。
We are at a crisis in our ability to proceed with that protection. It is a quiet crisis.?There are no lines of depositors outside closed banks. But to the far-sighted it is far-reaching in its possibilities of injury to America.
所以現(xiàn)在的危機(jī)是，法院懷疑我們能否保護(hù)經(jīng)濟(jì)。這是一個無聲的危機(jī)。就像倒閉的銀行外，雖然還沒有排起長隊(duì)。但是遠(yuǎn)見之人早已預(yù)料到這對美國的危害。
I want to talk with you very simply about the need for present action in this crisis - the need to meet the unanswered challenge of one-third of a Nation ill-nourished, ill-clad, ill-housed.
我想和大家簡要談一談在這場危機(jī)中，我們火速采取的必要性——我國有三分之一的人民食不果腹、衣不蔽體、身居陋室，我們必須幫助他們。
Last Thursday I described the American form of Government as a three horse team provided by the Constitution to the American people so that their field might be plowed. The three horses are, of course, the three branches of government - the Congress, the Executive and the Courts. Two of the horses are pulling in unison today; the third is not. Those who have intimated that the President of the United States is trying to drive that team, overlook the simple fact that the President, as Chief Executive, is himself one of the three horses.
上周三，我曾經(jīng)美國政治制度比作“憲法給我們的三駕馬車”，幫助美國耕田勞作。當(dāng)然，這三駕馬車就是政府的三大組成部分——國會、行政部和法院。其中兩匹馬正齊心協(xié)力拉著馬車奮勇向前；而第三匹馬卻不愿配合。有些人含沙射影地污蔑美國總統(tǒng)試圖操控三駕馬車，卻忽略了一個基本事實(shí)：美國總統(tǒng)作為行政部門的最高長官，本身就是拉車的三匹馬之一。
It is the American people themselves who are in the driver's seat.
駕馭著這輛馬車的，是美國人民自己。
It is the American people themselves who want the furrow plowed.
希望這輛馬車用于耕田的，也是美國人民自己。
It is the American people themselves who expect the third horse to pull in unison with the other two.
而現(xiàn)在，美國人民希望第三批馬與另外兩匹馬共同齊頭并進(jìn)。
I hope that you have re-read the Constitution of the United States in these past few weeks. Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again.
我希望大家在過去幾周重溫過美國憲法。大家要像對待《圣經(jīng)》一下，反復(fù)溫讀憲法。
It is an easy document to understand when you remember that it was called into being because the Articles of Confederation under which the original thirteen States tried to operate after the Revolution showed the need of a National Government with power enough to handle national problems. In its Preamble, the Constitution states that it was intended to form a more perfect Union and promote the general welfare; and the powers given to the Congress to carry out those purposes can be best described by saying that they were all the powers needed to meet each and every problem which then had a national character and which could not be met by merely local action.
如果大家還記得憲法是怎么形成，那么就不難理解其內(nèi)容，我們制定憲法，是因?yàn)楠?dú)立戰(zhàn)爭后，十三州按照《邦聯(lián)條例》運(yùn)作時，愈發(fā)覺得需要建立一個強(qiáng)而有力的中央政府來處理國事。我國憲法在序言中指出，其旨在立善盟、促公利；對于其賦予國會用以實(shí)現(xiàn)這些目標(biāo)的權(quán)力，最佳的理解方式是，這些權(quán)力僅是用以解決全國性的、且僅靠地方力量無法解決的問題。
But the framers went further. Having in mind that in succeeding generations many other problems then undreamed of would become national problems, they gave to the Congress the ample broad powers "to levy taxes ... and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."
但是制憲者們看得更遠(yuǎn)。他們考慮到，未來幾代人面臨的國家問題可能會是他們無法預(yù)料的，于是便授予了國會更大的權(quán)力，包括“征稅...保共守、促公利。”
That, my friends, is what I honestly believe to have been the clear and underlying purpose of the patriots who wrote a Federal Constitution to create a National Government with national power, intended as they said, "to form a more perfect union ... for ourselves and our posterity."
我的朋友們，我誠心相信憲法所言即是愛國制憲者們的本意，他們起草聯(lián)邦憲法，建立了一個治理萬邦的聯(lián)邦政府，以實(shí)現(xiàn)他們所規(guī)劃的目標(biāo)：“為立善盟...而使吾輩及后世得享自由之幸?！?br>
For nearly twenty years there was no conflict between the Congress and the Court. Then Congress passed a statute which, in 1803, the Court said violated an express provision of the Constitution. The Court claimed the power to declare it?unconstitutional and did so declare it. But a little later the Court itself admitted that it was an extraordinary power to exercise and through Mr. Justice Washington laid down this limitation upon it: "It is but a decent respect due to the wisdom, the integrity and the patriotism of the legislative body, by which any law is passed, to presume in favor of its validity until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt."
此后將近20年的時間里，國會和最高法院都沒有發(fā)生任何沖突。但是到了1803年，最高法院宣布了國會通過的一項(xiàng)法案違憲。當(dāng)時最高法院聲明，自己有權(quán)力宣布該方案違憲，并行使了這一權(quán)力。但后來，就連最高法院也認(rèn)為這一權(quán)力實(shí)在過大，于是華盛頓大法官對這一權(quán)力加以限制：“立法機(jī)構(gòu)通過一項(xiàng)法案后，最高法院在能夠確切證明該法案違憲之前，必須假定該法案合法，以示對立法機(jī)構(gòu)智慧、正直和愛國之成果的尊重?！?/span>
But since the rise of the modern movement for social and economic progress through legislation, the Court has more and more often and more and more boldly asserted a power to veto laws passed by the Congress and State Legislatures in complete disregard of this original limitation.
但自從國會大力推動國家社會經(jīng)濟(jì)朝著現(xiàn)代化發(fā)展以來，最高法院卻愈加頻繁且愈加肆意妄為地否定國會和各州的法案，完全無視了華盛頓大法官的限制。
In the last four years the sound rule of giving statutes the benefit of all reasonable doubt has been cast aside. The Court has been acting not as a judicial body, but as a policy-making body.
過去4年里，最高法院拋棄了本心，無端無理地否定各項(xiàng)法案。最高法院不再是司法機(jī)構(gòu)，而儼然成為了決策機(jī)構(gòu)。
When the Congress has sought to stabilize national agriculture, to improve the conditions of labor, to safeguard business against unfair competition, to protect our national resources, and in many other ways, to serve our clearly national needs, the majority of the Court has been assuming the power to pass on the wisdom of these acts of the Congress - and to approve or disapprove the public policy written into these laws.
在國會為穩(wěn)定我國農(nóng)業(yè)、改善工人工作條件、保護(hù)企業(yè)免遭不正當(dāng)競爭影響、保護(hù)國家自然資源等多個明顯惠及國家的法案，是否通過這些法案的決定權(quán)卻掌握在最高法院的多數(shù)法官手上——他們有權(quán)批準(zhǔn)或否定國會的法案是否有效。
That is not only my accusation. It is the accusation of most distinguished justices of the present Supreme Court. I have not the time to quote to you all the language used by dissenting justices in many of these cases. But in the case holding the Railroad Retirement Act unconstitutional, for instance, Chief Justice Hughes said in a dissenting opinion that the majority opinion was "a departure from sound principles," and placed "an unwarranted limitation upon the commerce clause." And three other justices agreed with him.
這并非我一人的指責(zé)。最高法院內(nèi)的幾位慧眼識珠的大法官也如此指責(zé)。我沒有時間將這些大法官的屢次指責(zé)一一羅列出來。但我可以舉其中幾個例子，比如最高法院認(rèn)定《鐵路職工退休法》違憲時，休斯大法官即刻對該判決表示了反對，認(rèn)為多數(shù)大法官的判斷“不符合原則”，且對“商業(yè)條例增加了不必要的限制?！彼挠^點(diǎn)也得到了另外三位大法官的支持。
In the case of holding the AAA unconstitutional, Justice Stone said of the majority opinion that it was a "tortured construction of the Constitution." And two other justices agreed with him.
再以農(nóng)業(yè)調(diào)整署違憲為例，斯通大法官認(rèn)為多數(shù)大法官的判決是“對憲法的褻瀆。”也得到了另外兩位大法官的支持。
In the case holding the New York minimum wage law unconstitutional, Justice Stone said that the majority were actually reading into the Constitution their own " personal economic predilections," and that if the legislative power is not left free to choose the methods of solving the problems of poverty, subsistence, and health of large numbers in the community, then "government is to be rendered impotent." And two other justices agreed with him.
再以確立紐約州最低工資的法案違憲為例，斯通大法官認(rèn)為，多數(shù)大法官實(shí)際上在按照“自己偏向的經(jīng)濟(jì)觀點(diǎn)”解讀憲法，而如果國會無法自由地行使立法權(quán)，幫助廣大人民群眾擺脫貧窮、糊口和健康的問題，那么“政府便毫無存在的意義?！边@一觀點(diǎn)也得到了另外兩位大法官的支持。
In the face of these dissenting opinions, there is no basis for the claim made by some members of the Court that something in the Constitution has compelled them regretfully to thwart the will of the people.
而最高法院的部分大法官面對這些指責(zé)，遺憾地表示，憲法中的某些條款迫使他們違背人民的意愿，但這種說法是站不住腳的。
In the face of such dissenting opinions, it is perfectly clear that, as Chief Justice Hughes has said, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
他們面對這些指責(zé)的做法，實(shí)際上正如休斯大法官所說的那樣，“我們生活在同一部憲法下，但憲法的內(nèi)容卻由法官們說了算?！?/span>
The Court in addition to the proper use of its judicial functions has improperly set itself up as a third house of the Congress - a super-legislature, as one of the justices has called it - reading into the Constitution words and implications which are not there, and which were never intended to be there.
最高法院在行使自己應(yīng)有的司法職能外，還越界將自己設(shè)立為了國會的第三個議院——一位大法官甚至稱其為“超級立法機(jī)構(gòu)”——他們無中生有地解讀憲法的條例，無端地推定其措辭含義。
We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.
因此，我們整個國家，都到了必須采取行動的地步，我們要將憲法從最高法院手中解救出來，還要將拯救最高法院本身。但我們必須想辦法，不再受制于最高法院，只遵從憲法本身。我們想要的，是一個屈從服務(wù)于憲法的最高法院，而不是凌駕于憲法之上的最高法院。在法庭上，我們希望看到一個法治政府，而不是人治政府。
I want - as all Americans want - an independent judiciary as proposed by the framers of the Constitution. That means a Supreme Court that will enforce the Constitution as written, that will refuse to amend the Constitution by the arbitrary exercise of judicial power - in other words by judicial say-so. It does not mean a judiciary so independent that it can deny the existence of facts which are universally recognized.
包括我在內(nèi)的全體美國人都認(rèn)為，我國的司法機(jī)構(gòu)應(yīng)當(dāng)獨(dú)立運(yùn)作，正如制憲者規(guī)劃的那樣。因此最高法院只能執(zhí)行憲法中的成文條例，而阻止濫用司法權(quán)來更改憲法內(nèi)容——也就是說，最高法院無權(quán)更改憲法。司法機(jī)構(gòu)獨(dú)立運(yùn)行，也并不意味著它可以否定公認(rèn)的客觀事實(shí)。
How then could we proceed to perform the mandate given us? It was said in last year's Democratic platform, "If these problems cannot be effectively solved within the Constitution, we shall seek such clarifying amendment as will assure the power to enact those laws, adequately to regulate commerce, protect public health and safety, and safeguard economic security." In other words, we said we would seek an amendment only if every other possible means by legislation were to fail.
那么我們應(yīng)該怎樣執(zhí)行肩負(fù)的任務(wù)呢？去年民主黨的綱領(lǐng)中寫道，“如果這些問題不能在憲法的框架下有效解決，那么我們就要用憲法修正案明確我們執(zhí)行法律的權(quán)力，以監(jiān)管規(guī)范商貿(mào)、維護(hù)公共健康安全，保持國家經(jīng)濟(jì)穩(wěn)定?！睋Q言之，我們說過，只有在其他法律手段全部失敗的情況下，我們才會提出憲法修正案。
When I commenced to review the situation with the problem squarely before me, I came by a process of elimination to the conclusion that, short of amendments, the only method which was clearly constitutional, and would at the same time carry out other much needed reforms, was to infuse new blood into all our Courts. We must have men worthy and equipped to carry out impartial justice. But, at the same time, we must have Judges who will bring to the Courts a present-day sense of the Constitution - Judges who will retain in the Courts the judicial functions of a court, and reject the legislative powers which the courts have today assumed.
當(dāng)我審視擺在面前的問題時，我排除了其他方案，得出了最終結(jié)論，出憲法修正案之外，唯一既符合憲法、又可以滿足我國迫切的改革需求的方法，就是向最高法院注入新的血液。我們必須讓有才有德之人進(jìn)入最高法院，才能確保執(zhí)法公正無私。但除此之外，我們還必須確保，這些大法官要能夠與時俱進(jìn)地解讀憲法——他們會讓最高法院僅履行其負(fù)的職能，阻止最高法院像現(xiàn)在這樣干涉立法權(quán)。
In forty-five out of the forty-eight States of the Union, Judges are chosen not for life but for a period of years. In many States Judges must retire at the age of seventy. Congress has provided financial security by offering life pensions at full pay for Federal Judges on all Courts who are willing to retire at seventy. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, that pension is $20,000 a year. But all Federal Judges, once appointed, can, if they choose, hold office for life, no matter how old they may get to be.
在聯(lián)邦的48個州中，有45個州的法官都并非終身任職，而是只有幾年任期。許多州都規(guī)定，法官在年滿70歲后必須退休。國會會為所有退休的聯(lián)邦法官提供與其工資相等的終身養(yǎng)老金，保障其經(jīng)濟(jì)能力。對最高法院的大法官來說，退休后每年可享有20000美元的退休金。但是所有聯(lián)邦法官一經(jīng)任命，無論他們年齡多大，都可以終身任職，除非自愿退休。
What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.
那么我的提議是什么呢？很簡單：聯(lián)邦法院的法官或大法官年滿70歲后，卻不愿領(lǐng)金退休的話，那么在職總統(tǒng)便可以根據(jù)憲法，在經(jīng)過美國參議院批準(zhǔn)后任命一位新法官。
That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all Federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries.
這一計(jì)劃主要有兩個目的。一來，我們可以源源不斷地將新鮮年輕的血液注入司法體系，使得聯(lián)邦所有司法機(jī)構(gòu)管理更加高效，同時節(jié)省更多成本；二來，讓年輕人處理社會經(jīng)濟(jì)問題也更好，因?yàn)樗麄冇H身經(jīng)歷過當(dāng)代社會的實(shí)際情況，了解普通群眾的生活和工作環(huán)境。這一計(jì)劃會防止國家司法機(jī)構(gòu)過于僵化，從而讓憲法與時俱進(jìn)。
The number of Judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present Judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy.
任命多少名新的法官，將完全由當(dāng)前超過70歲的法官數(shù)量決定，未來如有更多法官年滿70歲不愿退休，新法官的數(shù)量也會同等增加。
If, for instance, any one of the six Justices of the Supreme Court now over the age of seventy should retire as provided under the plan, no additional place would be created. Consequently, although there never can be more than fifteen, there may be only fourteen, or thirteen, or twelve. And there may be only nine.
比方說，最高法院現(xiàn)在已有6名大法官年逾70歲，如果他們中有任何一人選擇退休，那么我們便可以少增設(shè)一名大法官。所以以此類推，我們大法官的數(shù)量不可能超過15人，可能只有14個，13個，12個。甚至依然只有9個。
There is nothing novel or radical about this idea. It seeks to maintain the Federal bench in full vigor. It has been discussed and approved by many persons of high authority ever since a similar proposal passed the House of Representatives in 1869.
這一想法并不新穎，也不激進(jìn)。只是為了保證聯(lián)邦法官能充滿朝氣。其實(shí)自從1689年眾議院通過了一類似提案以來，政府許多高層官員就在討論這一改革，且許多人都表示支持。
Why was the age fixed at seventy? Because the laws of many States, the practice of the Civil Service, the regulations of the Army and Navy, and the rules of many of our Universities and of almost every great private business enterprise, commonly fix the retirement age at seventy years or less.
為什么把退休年齡規(guī)定為70歲呢？因?yàn)槎鄶?shù)州的法律、國家公職人員條例、陸海軍軍規(guī)、許多大學(xué)的校規(guī)和各大私人企業(yè)的公司規(guī)章，都將退休年齡定到了70歲，甚至更低。
The statute would apply to all the courts in the Federal system. There is general approval so far as the lower Federal courts are concerned. The plan has met opposition only so far as the Supreme Court of the United States itself is concerned. If such a plan is good for the lower courts it certainly ought to be equally good for the highest Court from which there is no appeal.
這一法規(guī)適用于所有聯(lián)邦法院。而且次級聯(lián)邦法院普遍支持這一法規(guī)。單單只有美國聯(lián)邦最高法院反對這一計(jì)劃。如果這一計(jì)劃對次級法院有利，那么按理說它應(yīng)對最高法院同樣有利才是，這一點(diǎn)毋庸置疑。
Those opposing this plan have sought to arouse prejudice and fear by crying that I am seeking to "pack" the Supreme Court and that a baneful precedent will be established.
What do they mean by the words "packing the Court"?
反對這一改革的人，聲稱我在“綁架”最高法院，開創(chuàng)了一個危險的先河，借此散播偏見和恐懼。他們說的“綁架法院”是什么意思呢？
Let me answer this question with a bluntness that will end all honest misunderstanding of my purposes.
我來直截了當(dāng)?shù)鼗卮疬@個問題，對于真正誤解了我意圖的人，我將打消你們的顧慮。
If by that phrase "packing the Court" it is charged that I wish to place on the bench spineless puppets who would disregard the law and would decide specific cases as I wished them to be decided, I make this answer: that no President fit for his office would appoint, and no Senate of honorable men fit for their office would confirm, that kind of appointees to the Supreme Court. But if by that phrase the charge is made that I would appoint and the Senate would confirm Justices worthy to sit beside present members of the Court who understand those modern conditions, that I will appoint Justices who will not undertake to override the judgment of the Congress on legislative policy, that I will appoint Justices who will act as Justices and not as legislators - if the appointment of such Justices can be called "packing the Courts," then I say that I and with me the vast majority of the American people favor doing just that thing- now.
如果“綁架法院”的意思是，我會架空法官的權(quán)力，使之成為我的傀儡，讓他們按照我的意愿判決案例，那么請聽好我的回答：任何一個合格的總統(tǒng)都不會任命自己的親信進(jìn)入最高法院，而且由正人君子組成的參議院也不會批準(zhǔn)這種任命。如果，“綁架法院”的意思是，除現(xiàn)任大法官之外，我會新任命能夠承擔(dān)起當(dāng)代艱巨任務(wù)的大法官，而且參議院也會批準(zhǔn)我的任命的話，那么是的，我任命的大法官，不會否定國會的立法政策判斷，我任命的大法官，只會做好自己大法官分內(nèi)的工作，而不會介入立法事務(wù)——如果任命這樣的大法官，會被誹謗為“綁架法院”，那么我只能說，我和大多數(shù)美國人民現(xiàn)在都贊成“綁架法院”。
Is it a dangerous precedent for the Congress to change the number of the Justices? The Congress has always had, and will have, that power. The number of justices has been changed several times before, in the Administration of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson - both signers of the Declaration of Independence - Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant.
那么國會改變大法官的數(shù)量，會開創(chuàng)危險的先河嗎？其實(shí)國會一直都擁有這種權(quán)力。在約翰·亞當(dāng)斯和托馬斯·杰斐遜執(zhí)政時，大法官的數(shù)量就曾多次更改——這二位都是《獨(dú)立宣言》的簽署者，此外更改過大法官數(shù)量的還有安德魯·杰克遜、亞伯拉罕·林肯和尤里西斯·S·格蘭特。
I suggest only the addition of Justices to the bench in accordance with a clearly defined principle relating to a clearly defined age limit. Fundamentally, if in the future, America cannot trust the Congress it elects to refrain from abuse of our Constitutional usages, democracy will have failed far beyond the importance to it of any king of precedent concerning the Judiciary.
而我建議的改革原則，只是通過增加法官數(shù)量，來對法官制定年齡限制。從根本上來說，如果美國人民不相信自己選舉的國會，認(rèn)為國會在未來會濫用憲法的權(quán)力，那么我們的民主制度就已經(jīng)徹徹底底的失敗了，相比之下，美國出了個帝王，要開創(chuàng)干涉司法獨(dú)立的先河，就根本不值一提。
We think it so much in the public interest to maintain a vigorous judiciary that we encourage the retirement of elderly Judges by offering them a life pension at full salary. Why then should we leave the fulfillment of this public policy to chance or make independent on upon the desire or prejudice of any individual Justice?
It is the clear intention of our public policy to provide for a constant flow of new and younger blood into the Judiciary. Normally every President appoints a large number of District and Circuit Court Judges and a few members of the Supreme Court. Until my first term practically every President of the United States has appointed at least one member of the Supreme Court. President Taft appointed five members and named a Chief Justice; President Wilson, three; President Harding, four, including a Chief Justice; President Coolidge, one; President Hoover, three, including a Chief Justice.
我們認(rèn)為，讓司法機(jī)構(gòu)充滿年輕朝氣是符合大眾利益的，所以我們?yōu)槟赀~的法官提供與其薪水相當(dāng)?shù)耐诵萁?，建議他們退休。那么，我們?yōu)槭裁捶艞墝?shí)現(xiàn)這一政策的決定權(quán)，或者說，將決定權(quán)交給大法官，完全由他們的意愿決定呢？因?yàn)槲覀冋叩哪繕?biāo)，是讓年輕血液源源不斷地注入司法機(jī)構(gòu)。通常每一位總統(tǒng)上任時，都會任命大量的地區(qū)巡回法官，還有少部分最高法院法官。在我的第一個任期之前，幾乎每一位美國總統(tǒng)上任時，都至少任命了一位最高法院法官。塔夫脫總統(tǒng)任命了5位法官，并提名了一名大法官；威爾遜總統(tǒng)任命了3位法官；哈丁總統(tǒng)任命了4位法官，其中一位是大法官；柯立芝總統(tǒng)任命了1位法官；胡佛總統(tǒng)任命了3位法官，其中一位是大法官。
Such a succession of appointments should have provided a Court well-balanced as to age. But chance and the disinclination of individuals to leave the Supreme bench have now given us a Court in which five Justices will be over seventy-five years of age before next June and one over seventy. Thus a sound public policy has been defeated.
這幾位總統(tǒng)的任命，本該能讓最高法院的年齡保持平衡。但是由于各位大法官不愿意退休，不愿意離開最高法院，導(dǎo)致現(xiàn)在我們的最高法院年齡過大，到6月時，會有5名大法官年滿75歲，1名大法官年滿70歲。所以他們否定了我們合理的政策。
I now propose that we establish by law an assurance against any such ill-balanced Court in the future. I propose that hereafter, when a Judge reaches the age of seventy, a new and younger Judge shall be added to the Court automatically. In this way I propose to enforce a sound public policy by law instead of leaving the composition of our Federal Courts, including the highest, to be determined by chance or the personal indecision of individuals.
所以我現(xiàn)在提議，以法律形式來確保最高法院在未來不會年齡失衡。我提議，今后每當(dāng)有一位法官年滿70歲時，最高法院就自動新增一名更加年輕的法官。我提議，以這種法律方式貫徹我們合理的公共政策，而不是將其交由包括最高法院在內(nèi)的聯(lián)邦各法院，交由各位法官憑借個人喜好和優(yōu)柔寡斷隨意決定。
If such a law as I propose is regarded as establishing a new precedent, is it not a most desirable precedent?
如果非要說我這一舉動是開創(chuàng)了某一種先河，那難道這一先河不是正面的嗎？
Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgement of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.
我和所有律師、全體美國人民一樣，對這場不可避免的糾紛深表遺憾。但是美國人民的福祉和美國憲法永遠(yuǎn)是我們的首要顧慮。我們今天與最高法院產(chǎn)生糾紛，并不是與最高法院這一機(jī)構(gòu)有糾紛，而是與最高法院里的司法人員有糾紛。我們不能將憲法賦予我們的使命交給恐懼未來的少數(shù)人決定，他們不愿意采納我們?yōu)榻鉀Q當(dāng)代問題采取的必要措施。
This plan of mine is no attack on the Court; it seeks to restore the Court to its rightful and historic place in our Constitutional Government and to have it resume its high task of building anew on the Constitution "a system of living law." The Court itself can best undo what the Court has done.
我提出這一計(jì)劃并不是想攻擊最高法院；而是希望根據(jù)憲法規(guī)定，讓法院恢復(fù)其在政府中應(yīng)有的歷史地位，從而讓其能夠以憲法為基礎(chǔ)，繼續(xù)其建成“一套與時俱進(jìn)的法律體系”的崇高任務(wù)。畢竟，解鈴還須系鈴人。
I have thus explained to you the reasons that lie behind our efforts to secure results by legislation within the Constitution. I hope that thereby the difficult process of constitutional amendment may be rendered unnecessary. But let us examine the process.
我剛剛向大家解釋了，我們?yōu)槭裁匆葱l(wèi)國會的合憲決議。我希望以這種方式避免憲法修正案不必要的繁瑣程序。不過我們可以看一下憲法修正案的通過程序。
There are many types of amendment proposed. Each one is radically different from the other. There is no substantial groups within the Congress or outside it who are agreed on any single amendment.
憲法修正提案有許多種性質(zhì)。每一種性質(zhì)都截然各不相同。國會內(nèi)外，都尚未有任何主要團(tuán)體對某一項(xiàng)憲法修正案達(dá)成過一致。
It would take months or years to get substantial agreement upon the type and language of the amendment. It would take months and years thereafter to get a two-thirds majority in favor of that amendment in both Houses of the Congress.
Then would come the long course of ratification by three-fourths of all the States. No amendment which any powerful economic interests or the leaders of any powerful political party have had reason to oppose has ever been ratified within anything like a reasonable time. And thirteen states which contain only five percent of the voting population can block ratification even though the thirty-five States with ninety-five percent of the population are in favor of it.
一項(xiàng)憲法修正案的定性和措辭，都需要經(jīng)過幾個月甚至幾年的反復(fù)打磨，才能遞交給國會。然后，修正案還需要再花費(fèi)少則幾月，多則幾年的時間來在國會兩院進(jìn)行表決，得到了參眾兩院三分之二贊成票數(shù)后才可以通過。然后還要交于全國各州表決，等待修正案得到四分之三以上的州支持，這一過程更加漫長。但凡有強(qiáng)大的利益集團(tuán)或者政黨領(lǐng)袖據(jù)理力爭，反對修正案，那這一項(xiàng)修正案都不要妄想能在短時間內(nèi)得到通過。而且就算有占據(jù)我國總?cè)丝?5%的35個州都批準(zhǔn)了修正案，另外僅占我國人口5%的13個州依舊可以阻止修正案通過。
A very large percentage of newspaper publishers, Chambers of Commerce, Bar Association, Manufacturers' Associations, who are trying to give the impression that they really do want a constitutional amendment would be the first to exclaim as soon as an amendment was proposed, "Oh! I was for an amendment all right, but this amendment you proposed is not the kind of amendment that I was thinking about. I am therefore, going to spend my time, my efforts and my money to block the amendment, although I would be awfully glad to help get some other kind od amendment ratified."
很多報紙出版社、商會、律師協(xié)會還有企業(yè)協(xié)會，都會讓政府覺得他們迫切希望對憲法進(jìn)行修正，但是等議員真的提出一項(xiàng)憲法修正案過后，他們又立刻驚呼，“哦！我的確希望對憲法進(jìn)行修正，但是你提出的修正案不是我想要的。所以我要花上我的時間、精力和金錢阻止這一修正案通過，好省出時間讓我想要的修正案盡早提上日程。”
Two groups oppose my plan on the ground that they favor a constitutional amendment. The first includes those who fundamentally object to social and economic legislation along modern lines. This is the same group who during the campaign last Fall tried to block the mandate of the people.
有兩種人反對我對法院的改革，理由是他們希望以憲法修正案解決問題。第一種人，是根本就不贊成我們與時俱進(jìn)地頒布社會經(jīng)濟(jì)法案。去年秋天的大選中，他們還試圖阻止人民表達(dá)的意愿。
Now they are making a last stand. And the strategy of that last stand is to suggest the time-consuming process of amendment in order to kill off by delay the legislation demanded by the mandate.
現(xiàn)在他們還在負(fù)隅頑抗。他們負(fù)隅頑抗的手段，便是利用憲法修正案耗時極長的復(fù)雜程序，來阻止政府需要的法案通過。
To them I say: I do not think you will be able long to fool the American people as to your purposes.
對于這些人，我想說：你們不可能靠一直欺騙美國人民達(dá)到自己的目的。
The other groups is composed of those who honestly believe the amendment process is the best and who would be willing to support a reasonable amendment if they could agree on one.
第二種人，是真心覺得修正案是最佳解決方式，如果屆時他們覺得修正案沒有什么問題，他們就愿意支持我們的修正案通過。
To them I say: we cannot rely on an amendment as the immediate or only answer to our present difficulties. When the time comes for action, you will find that many of those who pretend to support you will sabotage any constructive amendment which is proposed. Look at these strange bed-fellows of yours. When before have you found them really at your side in your fights for progress?
對于這些人，我想說：我們不能將修正案作為解決當(dāng)前問題的最佳方法或唯一方法。等我們真的提出修正案后，你會發(fā)現(xiàn)，有許多人會妨礙合理的修正案通過，他們的支持是假裝的。仔細(xì)看看你身邊這些貌合神離的人。你真的覺得，他們會和你一起致力于國家發(fā)展嗎？
And remember one thing more. Even if an amendment were passed, and even if in the years to come it were to be ratified, its meaning would depend upon the kind of Justices who would be sitting on the Supreme Court Bench. An amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, is what the Justices say it is rather than what its framers or you might hope it is.
而且別忘了。就算修正案能在幾年內(nèi)通過批準(zhǔn)，其最終解釋權(quán)還是歸最高法院的大法官所有。修正案也可能會變得跟憲法本身一樣，被大法官們隨意解釋，而偏離立法者和人民的意愿。
This proposal of mine will not infringe in the slightest upon the civil or religious liberties so dear to every American.
而我提議的方法，則絲毫不會侵犯美國人民珍視的公民自由和宗教自由。
My record as Governor and President proves my devotion to those liberties. You who know me can have no fear that I would tolerate the destruction by any branch of government of any part of our heritage of freedom.
我擔(dān)任州長和總統(tǒng)時的所作所為，都證明了我對自由的鐘愛。了解我的人都知道，我絕不容忍任何破壞政府部門，或自由遺產(chǎn)的行為。
The present attempt by those opposed to progress to play upon the fears of danger to personal liberty brings again to mind that crude and cruel strategy tried by the same opposition to frighten the workers of America in a pay-envelope propaganda against the Social Security Law. The workers were not fooled by that propaganda then. The people of America will not be fooled by such propaganda now.
一些反對進(jìn)步的人，現(xiàn)在試圖利用大家對失去個人自由的恐懼來阻止改革，這讓我們再次想起，當(dāng)年我們通過《社會保障法》時，這群反派對曾在工資信封中寫上危言聳聽的政治宣傳標(biāo)語，企圖以這種低劣惡毒的手段恐嚇美國工人。當(dāng)時的美國工人就沒有相信他們的胡言。而今天的美國人民照相不會被欺騙。
I am in favor of action through legislation:
我只贊成以法律形式推動改革：
First, because I believe that it can be passed at this session of the Congress.
第一是因?yàn)?，我相信本次國會愿意通過這一法案。
Second, because it will provide a reinvigorated, liberal-minded Judiciary necessary to furnish quicker and cheaper justice from bottom to top.
第二，該法案將解放我國司法機(jī)構(gòu)的思想，使之煥發(fā)活力，進(jìn)而能夠自下而上、快捷有效地伸張公正。
Third, because it will provide a series of Federal Courts willing to enforce the Constitution as written, and unwilling to assert legislative powers by writing into it their own political and economic policies.
第三，該法案將讓聯(lián)邦法院樂意執(zhí)行憲法的成文條例，同時不再將法官的個人政治經(jīng)濟(jì)看法強(qiáng)加入憲法，從而侵犯立法權(quán)。
During the past half century the balance of power between the three great branches of the Federal Government, has been tipped out of balance by the Courts in direct contradiction of the high purposes of the framers of the Constitution. It is my purpose to restore that balance. You who know me will accept my solemn assurance that in a world in which democracy is under attack, I seek to make American democracy succeed. You and I will do our part.
在過去的半個世紀(jì)中，聯(lián)邦政府三權(quán)分立、相互制衡的原則被法院打破，這是制憲者們十分不愿意看到的結(jié)果。而我的目標(biāo)，就是重新制衡法院。在世界各地掀起反民主浪潮的大背景下，我向大家保證，我會捍衛(wèi)美國民主制度，了解我的人一定不會懷疑我的誠意。而你我都要為此各盡其職。
聲明：本人僅按照原文翻譯內(nèi)容，演講內(nèi)容不代表本人觀點(diǎn)。此專欄僅供歷史和英語交流學(xué)習(xí)使用，任何讀者皆可引用本人的譯本。
希望來學(xué)習(xí)英語的觀眾明白：我覺得這些專欄的主要精華在于英語原文，而并非我的譯本，我的譯本很大程度上只是供來學(xué)習(xí)歷史的觀眾使用的。本人的英語水平一般，翻譯得并不會多么精彩，只能在你看不懂時來幫助你了解這些演講內(nèi)容最基本的意思，而且翻譯時難免會出現(xiàn)差錯，切勿直接完全以我的譯本為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。如發(fā)現(xiàn)有翻譯錯誤或者歧義內(nèi)容，歡迎指正。
希望來學(xué)習(xí)歷史的觀眾明白：任何歷史人物都有一定的局限性，隨著時代發(fā)展，很多觀點(diǎn)看法可能已經(jīng)不再適用今天的世界，西方的觀點(diǎn)也不一定適用于我們。通過了解這些演講，僅可給我們提供一個更全面了解過去和世界的渠道。我們可以從優(yōu)秀的歷史、當(dāng)代人物身上學(xué)到很多，但是請保持獨(dú)立思考，理性看待演講內(nèi)容，切勿全信或?qū)⑵浞顬檎胬怼?/strong>
