(单词翻译:单击)
听力文本
Today, Gordon Gaippe and Richard Rael continue the story of the United States Constitution. Last week, we told how the convention heard details of the Virginia Plan. That was a fifteen-part plan of government prepared by James Madison and other delegates from the state of Virginia. The plan described a national government with a supreme legislature, executive and judiciary. The convention debated the meaning of the words "national" and "supreme." Some delegates feared that such a central government would take away power from the states. But in the end, they approved the proposal. On June first, they began debate on the issue of a national executive. The Virginia Plan offered several points for discussion. It said the national executive should be chosen by the national legislature. The executive's job would be to carry out the laws made by the legislature. He would serve a number of years. He would be paid a small amount of money. These points served as a basis for debate. Over a period of several weeks, the delegates worked out details of the executive's position and powers. It seemed every delegate at the Philadelphia convention had something to say about the issue of a national executive. They had been thinking about it for some time.
Almost every delegate was afraid to give the position extended powers. Almost no one wanted America's chief executive to become as powerful as a king. Still, many of the delegates had faith in the idea of a one-man executive. Others demanded an executive of three men. James Wilson of Pennsylvania argued for the one-man executive. He said the position required energy and the ability to make decisions quickly. He said these would best be found in one man. Edmund Randolph of Virginia disagreed strongly. He said he considered a one-man executive as "the fetus of monarchy." John Dickinson of Delaware said he did not denounce the idea of monarchy, of having a government headed by a king. He said it was one of the best governments in the world. However, in America, he said, a king was "out of the question." The debate over the size of the national executive lasted a long time. Finally, the delegates voted. Seven state delegations voted for a one-man executive. Three voted against the idea. During the debate on size, other questions arose about the national executive. One question was the executive's term. Should he serve just once or could he be re-elected? Alexander Hamilton argued for a long term of office. He said if a president served only a year or two, America soon would have many former presidents. These men, he said, would fight for power.
And that would be bad for the peace of the nation. Delegates debated two main proposals on the question. One was for a three-year term with re-election permitted. The other was for one seven-year term. The vote on the question was close. Five state delegations approved a term of seven years. Four voted no. The question came up again during the convention and was debated again. In the final document, the president's term was set at four years with re-election permitted. Next came the question of how to choose the national executive. It was a most difficult problem. The delegates debated, voted, re-debated, and re-voted a number of proposals. James Wilson proposed that the executive be elected by special representatives of the people, called electors. The electors would be chosen from districts set up for this purpose. Several delegates disagreed. They said the people did not know enough to choose good electors. They said the plan would be too difficult to carry out and would cost too much money. One delegate proposed that the national executive be elected by the state governors. He said the governors of large states would have more votes than the governors of small states. Nobody liked this proposal, especially delegates from the small states. It was defeated. Another proposal was to have the national executive elected directly by the people. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts was shocked by this idea.
"The people do not understand these things," he said. "A few dishonest men can easily fool the people. The worst way to choose a president would be to have him elected by the people." So the delegates voted to have the national legislature appoint the national executive. Then they voted against this method. Instead, they said, let state legislatures name electors who would choose the executive. But the delegates changed their mind on this vote, too. They re-debated the idea of direct popular elections. The convention voted on the issue sixty times. In the end, it agreed that the national executive should be chosen by electors named by state legislatures. Now, someone said, we have decided how to choose the executive. But what are we to do if the executive does bad things after being appointed? We should have some way of dismissing him. Yes, the delegates agreed. It should be possible to impeach the executive, to try him, and if guilty, remove him from office. Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania spoke in support of impeachment. A national executive, he said, may be influenced by a greater power to betray his trust. The delegates approved a proposal for removing a chief executive found guilty of bribery, treason, or other high crimes.
The last major question about the national executive was the question of veto power over the national legislature. Not one delegate was willing to give the executive complete power to reject new laws. And yet they felt the executive should have some voice in the law-making process. If this were not done, they said, the position of executive would have little meaning. And the national legislature would have the power of a dictator. The executive should have the power to veto a law, Madison said. But his veto could be over-turned if most members of the legislature voted to pass the law again. The final convention document listed more details about the national executive, or president. For example, it said the president had to be born in the United States or a citizen at the time the Constitution was accepted. He must have lived in the United States for at least fourteen years. He must be at least thirty-five years old. The executive would be paid. But his pay could not be increased or reduced during his term in office. He would be commander-in-chief of the armed forces. And, from time to time, he would have to report to the national legislature on the state of the Union. The final document also gave the words by which a president would be sworn-in. Every four years -- for more than two hundred years now -- each president has repeated this oath of office: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
重点解析
1.argued for 为反对
After the tax presentation, Roger Altman and Larry Summers argued for a short-term stimulus package to go with the deficit-reduction plan.
讨论了税收问题之后，罗杰.奥尔特曼和拉里.萨默斯认为，为了与削减赤字计划相配套，应该推行一套短期经济刺激方案。
2.carry out 执行，实行；贯彻；实现；完成
You must carry out my orders.
你必须执行我的命令。
3.chief executive 行政长官；董事长；美国总统；
But as chief executive of a dynamic information business, I also see how debilitating the stream of news and reaction can be for an organisation if mishandled.
但是作为一个不断变化的信息企业的主管，我也看到如果处理不当，一连串新闻和反应会多么消弱一个企业。
4.in support of 支持；拥护
I am just doing what I can in support of them.
我现在只是做我能够做的支持他们。
5.approved of 认为
This was true of Democrats and Republicans, rich and poor – all groups we surveyed approved of some inequality, but their ideal was far more equal than the current level.
这就是真实写照，在被调查的民主党人和共和党人，穷人和富人都认可一些不平等，但是他们理想是需要比现在要公平多的一个社会。
参考译文
今天，戈登·盖普和理查德·拉尔继续讲述美国宪法的故事。上周，我们讲述了制宪大会如何听取《弗吉尼亚方案》细节的。该方案为詹姆斯、麦迪逊和其他弗吉尼亚州的代表起草的15点计划。它描述了拥有最高立法、行政和司法机构的国家政府。大会辩论了“国家”和“最高”的含义。一些代表担心这样的中央政府会削弱各州的权力。但是最后，他们同意建立国家政府。6月1日，他们开始就国家总统的问题展开辩论。《弗吉尼亚方案》提出了几个点。它说，总统应该由国会挑选。总统的工作将是执行立法机关制定的法律，服务若干年，领取小额报酬。这些观点奠定了辩论的基础。在接下来的几个星期里，代表们确立了总统职能和权力的具体细节。在国家总统的问题上，似乎大会上的每一位代表都有话要说。他们已经想了很久。几乎所有的代表都不敢给予该职位更多的权力。没有人希望国家总统拥有像国王一样强大的权力。尽管如此，许多代表仍然对一人执政抱有信心。另一些人则要求三人执政。宾夕法尼亚州的詹姆斯·威尔逊支持一人执政。他表示，这个职位需要饱满精力和快速做出决定的能力。因此最好是一人执政。
弗吉尼亚州的埃德蒙·伦道夫强烈反对。他认为一人执政是“君主制的胎儿”。特拉华州的约翰·迪金森表示，他不抵制君主制，即由国王领导政府的想法。他表示，君主制是世界上最好的政治体制之一。然而，他也指出，在美国，国王是“毫无可能的”。围绕总统的争论持续了很长时间。最后，代表们就一人执政进行投票选举，7个州赞成。3个州反对。这一期间还提出了有关总统的其它问题。一个是任期，是否应该应选连任。亚历山大·汉密尔顿主张长期执政。他说，如果一位总统只任职一两年的话，美国很快就会有很多位前总统。这些人争权夺利，不利于国家和平。本杰明·富兰克林主张连任，他说，人民是国家的统治者。总统是人民的公仆。人民有权多次选举同一位总统。代表们就该问题的两项主要议案进行了辩论。一项是三年任期，并允许连任。另一项是七年任期，任期为一届。投票结果不相上下。五个州的代表团支持任期七年，四个州投了反对票。这个问题在大会上再次被提出，讨论。在最终文件中，总统任期设定为4年，允许连任。接下来是如何选择国家总统的问题。这个问题最为棘手，代表们辩论、投票、再辩论、再投票。詹姆斯·威尔逊提议，总统由人民的特殊代表选举产生，这些代表叫做选举人。
选举人将从地区选出。有些代表反对该提案。他们表示，普通民众掌握的信息还不足以让他们推举出优秀的选举人。他们说该提案执行起来太难了，而且花费过大。一名代表提议，总统由各州州长选举产生。他说，人口越多，各州的选票就越多。没有人喜欢这个提议，尤其是人口较少州的代表。另一项提议是，总统由人民直接选举产生。马萨诸塞州的埃尔布里奇·格里对该想法颇为震惊。他表示，“百姓不明白这些事，一些不诚实的人很容易欺骗百姓，最糟糕的办法就是由人民选举总统。”因此，代表们投票决定由国会任命总统。然后他们又投票反对该方法。他们说，让州议会提名选举总统的选举人。但是代表们后来又改变了主意。他们重新对此进行了辩论。大会对这个问题先后进行了60次表决。最后同意，总统应由州议会提名的选举人选出。有人说，现在，我们已经决定了如何选择总统。但如果总统做了坏事，我们该怎么办呢?我们应该想办法罢免他。是的，代表们觉得很有道理。这样的话，应该要弹劾总统，审判他，如果有罪，就把他赶下台。
宾夕法尼亚州的古韦努尔莫里斯支持弹劾机制 。他说，国家的总统可能会受到更大权力的影响，背离人民对他的信任。代表们批准了一项提案，提案规定总统若被发现犯有贿赂、叛国罪或其他重罪就必须免职。关于总统的最后一个主要问题是国会的否决权问题。代表们都不愿意让总统有否决新法的绝对权利。然而，他们觉得总统在立法过程中应该有一些发言权。如果不这样做的话，总统的职位就没有什么意义。国会就会一揽独权。麦迪逊表示，总统应该有权否决一项法律。但如果大多数议会成员再次投票通过，总统的否决可以被推翻。最后一份文件列出了有关总统的详实细节。例如，宪法规定，总统必须在美国出生或是美国公民。他一定在美国住了至少14年，年纪在35岁以上。总统将得到工资。但是，在其任期内，工资不能上调或下调。总统指挥武装力量。而且，他还要不时地向国会汇报国情。最后的文件还规定了总统宣誓就职的条件。两百多年来，每四年，每位总统都要重复这一就职誓言:“我谨庄严宣誓，我必忠实执行合众国总统职务，竭尽全力，恪守、维护和捍卫合众国宪法。”
译文为可可英语翻译，未经授权请勿转载！
