(单词翻译:单击)
听力文本
Today, Blake Lanum and I continue the story of the United States Constitution. The story does not flow easily. The reason is a rule made by the delegates. From the beginning, they agreed that the convention had the right to change its decisions. The convention did not just discuss a proposal, vote on it and move on to other issues. Any delegate could ask to re-discuss any proposal or any decision. And they often did. Every man who saw one of his ideas defeated brought it up again later. The same speeches that were made the first time were made again. So days, even weeks, passed between discussions of the same proposal. The story of the Philadelphia convention would be difficult to understand if we told about events day-by-day. So, we will put the calendar and the clock away, and tell how each major question was debated and settled. After the delegates agreed that the convention could change its decisions, they agreed on a rule of secrecy. Guards were placed at the doors of the State House. Newspaper reporters were not permitted inside. And delegates could not discuss convention business in public. The secrecy rule led people to get many strange ideas about the convention, especially in Europe.
There, most people believed the convention was discussing how America could be ruled by a king. Europeans said a republican government worked in a small country, such as Switzerland, but not, they said, in a land as large as America. So some of them began talking about which European prince might be asked to become king of America. Some were sure it would be Prince Henry of Prussia. Others said it would be Prince Frederick Augustus, the second son of King George the Third of Britain. Without news reports from Philadelphia, even some Americans believed these stories. At the time of the convention, Thomas Jefferson was serving as America's representative to France. When he learned of the secrecy rule, he was angry. He believed strongly in freedom of speech and freedom of the press. More than forty years later, James Madison explained the decision behind the rule. Madison said that if the convention had been open to the public, no delegate would ever change his mind after speaking on an issue. To do so would mean he was wrong the first time he spoke. And no delegate would be willing to admit to the public that he had made a mistake.
Madison said if the meetings had been open, the convention would have failed. Another rule helped the delegates speak freely. It was a method of debate called the committee of the whole. It may seem a foolish method. But it was useful then and still is today in legislatures. It is a way for people to discuss ideas, vote, and then change their minds. Their votes -- while in committee -- are not recorded permanently. To have the Philadelphia convention become a committee of the whole, the delegates needed to elect a chairman of the committee. They chose Nathaniel Gorham, a judge from Massachusetts. Each morning at ten o'clock, the convention met and declared it was sitting as a committee of the whole. George Washington then left the president's chair. Nathaniel Gorham took his place. Just before four o'clock in the afternoon, the committee of the whole declared it was sitting again as a convention. Judge Gorham stepped down, and General Washington took the chair. He declared that the convention would meet again the next morning. This process was repeated every day. On May twenty-ninth, the delegates heard the Virginia Plan. This was the plan of government prepared by James Madison and other delegates from the state of Virginia. The thirty-three-year-old governor of Virginia, Edmund Randolph, presented the plan.
First, he spoke about America's existing plan of government, the Articles of Confederation. Governor Randolph praised the Articles and the men who wrote them. He called those men "wise" and "great." But, he said, the articles were written for thirteen states in a time of war. Something more was needed now for the new nation. Something permanent. Governor Randolph spoke of conditions in all the states. He told the delegates what they already knew was true. Government was breaking down in many parts of the country. As he presented the Virginia Plan, Edmund Randolph noted that its fifteen parts were just ideas. The state of Virginia, he said, did not want to force them on the convention. Yet the ideas should be discussed. Change them as you wish, he told the convention. But talk about them fully. Other delegates presented their own plans for discussion. We will talk about some of them in later programs. But from the beginning, the Virginia Plan had the most influence. For more than three months, delegates would debate each part, vote on it, then debate it again. The Virginia Plan formed the basis of discussion at the convention in Philadelphia. In the end, it formed the basis of the United States Constitution. The announced purpose of the convention was to change the Articles of Confederation to make them more effective.The Virginia Plan was not a plan of proposed changes. It was much more extreme. It was, in fact, a plan for a completely new central government. Debate on the Virginia Plan began May thirtieth. Immediately, Edmund Randolph proposed an amendment. The plan, he noted, spoke of a federal union of states. But such a federation would not work. Instead, he said, America's central government should be a national government. It should contain a supreme legislature, executive and judiciary. For a few moments, there was complete silence. Many of the delegates seemed frozen in their chairs. Did they hear correctly? Most of them did not question the idea of a government with three separate parts. Several states already had such a system. But to create a central government that was "national" and "supreme" -- what did these words mean exactly? What was the difference? The delegates debated the meaning of these words -- federal, national, supreme -- for many days. Both James Madison and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania tried to explain. Madison said a federal government acts on states. A national government acts directly on the people. Morris gave this explanation.
A federal government is simply an agreement based on the good faith of those involved. A national government has a complete system of operation and its own powers. Pierce Butler of South Carolina wanted to know why a national government was necessary. Did the states need to be national? "But we are a nation!" John Dickinson of Delaware answered. "We are a nation although made of parts, or states." Gouverneur Morris continued. He spoke of the future when the delegates meeting in Philadelphia would be dead. Their children and grandchildren, he said, would stop thinking of themselves as citizens of Pennsylvania or New York or North Carolina. Instead, they would think of themselves as citizens of the United States. "This generation will die away," Morris said, "and be followed by a race of Americans." Morris declared that the states had to take second place to a national government with supreme power. "It is better to take a supreme government now," he said, "than a dictator twenty years from now. For come he must." In the end, the delegates approved the proposal for a national government. Next week, we will tell about the debate over a national executive, the part of the government that would enforce the laws.重点解析
1.followed by 然后，随后；续集
While in text-mode, press followed by .
当在文本模式时，请按 ，然后按 。
2.agreed on 公认的
Either his boss or his colleagues agreed on this.
不论是他的老板还是他的同事都同意这点。
3.In the end 终于，最后
He calmed down in the end. 他的情绪终于平定下来。
4.plans for 计划
What are your plans for it?
你是怎么为他规划的？
5.admit to 承认；许可进入
And that even parents who preach to their kids about the importance of being honest admit to lying to them as well.
即使是那些教育孩子要诚实的父母也承认，他们会在说明诚实重要性的同时对孩子们撒谎。
参考译文
今天，我和布莱克·拉南姆继续讲述美国宪法的故事。会议进展并非一帆风顺，原因是代表们制定的规则。从一开始，代表们就一致同意：大会有权改变已经做出的决定。大会上并不是讨论后投票表决就完事了，任何代表都可以要求重新讨论任何提案或决定。代表们经常如此。凡是被否决的想法，后来又再次被提出来。第一次讨论的内容又被讨论一遍。因此，几天，甚至几周讨论的都是同样的问题。如果我们以重复单调的方式讲述费城制宪大会的故事不免让人费解。所以，故事将围绕重大问题的讨论和解决来展开。代表们除了同意大会可以改变决定外，他们还同意了一项保密规则。议会大楼门外安排有警卫。报社记者不允许入内。代表们不得公开讨论会议事务。保密规则使得人们对大会产生各种奇怪的想法，尤其是欧洲。大多数人认为，会议讨论的是如何让国王统治美国。欧洲人认为，共和制政府只适合瑞士这样的小国，对美国这么大的国家行不通。一些人开始谈论哪个欧洲王子将出任美国的国王。有人说，肯定是普鲁士的亨利王子。还有人说，是英国国王乔治三世的次子——弗雷德里克·奥古斯都王子。费城封锁了这一新闻，甚至一些美国人也对此半信半疑。大会召开时，托马斯·杰斐逊担任美国驻法国代表。当他得知保密规则时，他很生气，因为他坚信言论自由和新闻自由。
40多年后，詹姆斯·麦迪逊解释了保密规定背后的原因。麦迪逊表示，如果大会对外公开的话，代表们不会在问题发表后改变主意。因为这样就意味着他第一次说的内容是错的。没有代表愿意向公众承认自己犯了错。麦迪逊说，如果对外公开的话，大会就会以失败告终。大会的另外一项规则帮助代表们畅所欲言，即全体委员会的辩论方法。这个方法虽然听似很愚蠢，但在当时，即使是今天也是有效的。人们可以讨论想法、投票、然后改变立场。委员会审议阶段，这些人的投票不会被永久记录下来。为了使制宪会议成为一个全体委员会，代表们需要推举委员会主席。他们选择了马萨诸塞州法官——纳撒尼尔·戈汉姆。每天上午十点钟，大会人员聚集在一起，宣布其为全体委员会。乔治·华盛顿起身离开了主席座位，纳撒尼尔·戈汉姆坐在他的位置上。下午四点钟之前，全体委员会宣布其为制宪会议。戈汉姆法官走下台，华盛顿将军主持会议。华盛顿宣布大会第二天上午再次召开。每天都是这样的流程。5月29日，代表们听取了《弗吉尼亚方案》。该计划由詹姆斯·麦迪逊和其他弗吉尼亚州代表拟定。33岁的弗吉尼亚州州长埃德蒙·伦道夫介绍了这一计划。他首先谈到了美国现存的政府计划——《联邦条例》。
伦道夫赞扬了这些条例和撰写这些条例的人。他称这些人为“智者”和“伟人”。但是，他表示，这些条例是为战争时期的13个州写的。美国现在已经实现独立，其内容还需要补充，需要一份永久性文件。伦道夫州长谈到了十三个州的情况，他告诉代表们，他们知道的情况属实。美国的许多地方政府正在分崩离析。埃德蒙·伦道夫指出，《弗吉尼亚方案》的15点主张只是想法。他说，维吉尼亚州不想在大会上强烈推行这个方案，希望会议代表们能够深入讨论。文件可以做出更改，但要充分讨论、各抒己见。其他代表也提出了各自的方案。我们将在以后的节目中介绍其中一些方案。但从一开始，《弗吉尼亚方案》影响最大。在三个多月的时间里，代表们对计划里的条款逐项讨论，投票表决，再次讨论。《弗吉尼亚方案》成为制宪会议讨论的基础。最后，成为美国《宪法》的基础。大会召开的目的是修改《联邦条例》，使其更加有效。《弗吉尼亚方案》并非变革的提议方案，它更加极端。事实上，计划要求建立一个全新的中央政府。关于《弗吉尼亚方案》的辩论于5月30日开始。埃德蒙·伦道夫立即提出了一项修正案。他指出，该计划提到的联邦各州联盟是行不通的。他说，美国的中央政府应该是一个国家政府，应该包括最高立法机关、行政机关和司法机关。有好一会儿，全场鸦雀无声。许多代表似乎僵坐在椅子上，怀疑自己是不是听错了。他们中的大多数人对三权分立的想法没有什么异议。
有几个州已经建立了这样的体系。但要建立“国家的”和“最高权利”的中央政府，这些话究竟是什么意思?有什么区别?接下来的许多天，代表们就这些词的含义——联邦、国家、最高——展开了争论。宾夕法尼亚州的詹姆斯·麦迪逊和古韦努尔·莫里斯都试图对此做出解释。麦迪逊说，联邦政府针对的是各州。国家针对的是人民。莫里斯给出了这样的解释。联邦政府不过是建立在各方诚意基础上的协议。国家政府拥有完整的运行体系和权力。南卡·罗莱纳州的皮尔斯·巴特勒想知道，为什么国家政府是必要的。各州需要国家政府吗?“但我们是一个国家!”特拉华州的约翰·迪金森回答道。“我们是一个由部分州组成的国家。”古弗尼尔·莫里斯接着谈到了制宪大会结束后的事情。他说，会议代表们将不再认为自己是宾夕法尼亚、纽约或北卡罗莱纳州的公民。相反，他们会认为自己是美国公民。莫里斯说：“这一代人将会消亡，下一代将是美国人。”莫里斯宣布，各州必须隶属于拥有最高权力的国家政府。他说：“现在组建一个最高政府比20年后的独裁者更好。”因为独裁者一定会出现。最后，代表们批准了建立国家政府的提案。下周，我们将讲述关于国家行政部门的辩论，这是政府的执法部门。译文为可可英语翻译，未经授权请勿转载！
