(单词翻译:单击)
听力文本
Today, Gordon Gaippe and Richard Rael continue the story of the Constitution. Last week, we told how the convention reached agreement on a national executive. Delegates spent several weeks debating details of the position and powers. The delegates decided the executive would be chosen by electors named by state legislatures. They decided he could veto laws. And they decided he could be removed from office if found guilty of serious crimes. The delegates did not call the executive 'president'. That name for America's leader would be used later. However, we will use it now to make our story easier to understand. Another major issue debated by the convention was a national judiciary: a federal system of courts and judges. The delegates knew a lot about the issue. Thirty-four of them were lawyers. Eight were judges in their home states. One question hung heavy in the air. The states had their own system of courts and judges. Did the national government need them, too? Several delegates said no. Roger Sherman of Connecticut said existing state courts were enough.
In addition, he said, a system of national courts would be too costly. John Rutledge of South Carolina opposed a national system of lower courts. But he argued for a national Supreme Court. The convention voted for both. There would be one Supreme Court and a system of lower courts. These national courts would hear cases involving national laws, the rights of American citizens, and wrong-doing by foreign citizens in the United States. The system of state courts would continue to hear cases involving state laws. The next question concerned the appointment of national judges. Some delegates believed judges should be appointed by the national legislature. Others believed they should be appointed by the president. James Wilson of Pennsylvania argued in support of having one person name judges. He said experience showed that large bodies could not make appointments fairly or openly. John Rutledge disagreed strongly. By no means, he said, should the president appoint judges. He said that method looked too much like monarchy. Benjamin Franklin then told a funny little story.
In Scotland, Franklin said, he understood that judges were appointed by lawyers. They always chose the very best lawyer to be a judge. Then they divided his business among themselves. The delegates voted on the issue. They agreed only to create a Supreme Court. Details of the system were left to the national legislature and the president. The legislature could decide how many judges would sit on the Supreme Court. The president would appoint the judges. The legislature could establish lower courts from time to time. The president would appoint those judges, too. Throughout the summer of seventeen eighty-seven, the Philadelphia convention based its debates on a plan of government offered by delegates from Virginia. But the Virginia Plan was not the only one offered. Another plan came from New Jersey. New Jersey delegate William Paterson presented the plan about a month after the convention began. The other delegates saw immediately that it was directly opposed to the Virginia Plan.
The Virginia Plan talked of a national government. Under it, a national legislature, executive and judiciary would have supreme power over the states. The New Jersey Plan talked about a federal government. Under it, each state would keep its own independent powers over the union of states. The New Jersey Plan proposed some changes in the existing Articles of Confederation. It did not propose a completely new system of government. Under the New Jersey Plan, the federal government would have a legislature with just one house. Each state would have one vote in the legislature. Big states and little states would be equal. The federal government would have an executive of more than one person. It would not have a system of lower federal courts. And its powers would come from the states...not the people. Supporters of the New Jersey Plan then talked about the true purpose of the Philadelphia convention. They said the states had sent delegates to discuss changes in the Articles of Confederation. The delegates, they said, did not have the right to throw the Articles away. If the Union under the Articles is radically wrong, one said, let us return to our states. Let our states give us more powers to negotiate. Let us not take these powers upon ourselves. Then James Wilson of Pennsylvania spoke. He explained his own idea about the purpose of the convention. Its instructions, he said, were to reach final agreement on nothing.
But it could propose and discuss anything. Wilson also questioned the delegates' right to speak for the people. Is it not true, he said, that the opinions of one's friends are commonly mistaken for the opinions of the general population? He noted that some delegates firmly believed the people would never accept a national government. They would never give up their state's rights. Wilson was not so sure. "Why should a national government be unpopular?" he asked. "Has it less honor? Will each citizen enjoy under it less liberty or protection? Will a citizen of one state be respected less by becoming a citizen of the United States?" Edmund Randolph of Virginia spoke next. He said the convention had no choice but to establish a national government. It would be an act of treason not to do what was necessary to save the republic. And, he said, only a new, national government would work.
"The present moment is the last moment for establishing a national government," Randolph said. "After this experiment, the people will lose all hope." Debate on the New Jersey Plan took place on Saturday, June sixteenth. The following Monday, they heard yet another plan of government. It was offered by the delegate from New York, Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton had said little at the convention. On this day, he spoke for five hours. Hamilton said he did not offer his ideas as an official proposal. But he said they could be considered amendments to the Virginia Plan. Then he read the details. I would like to see in America, Hamilton said, one executive. He would be chosen by electors. He could veto any law, and his veto could not be over-turned. He would serve for life. Next, he said, the national legislature would have two houses. The upper house would be called the senate.
The lower house would be called the assembly. Like the chief executive, senators would be chosen by electors for life. Members of the assembly would be elected directly by the people for a term of three years. Then Hamilton spoke about the states. Under his plan, the states would lose many of their existing rights and powers. State governors would be appointed by the national government. And states no longer could have their own military forces. Hamilton was sure America's existing form of government would not work when the country got bigger. He believed America should follow the British form of government. He called it the best in the world. No one stopped Hamilton during his long speech to argue or ask questions. Historians say this is surprising. Hamilton's ideas were extreme. His public support for the British government was unpopular. His statements were unacceptable to everyone at the convention. But the weather had been hot. The speech had been long. The delegates agreed to end their business for another day.
重点解析
1.major issue 重大问题
The major issue is that some of the innermost elements have a start tag but no ending tag, which is required for XML.
最主要的问题是某些最里面的元素具有一个开始标记，却没有结束标记，而这是 XML 所必需的。
2.appointed by 被……安排
They purport to be the writings of Clement, the first bishop of Rome, ie -- the first Catholic Pope appointed by Peter.
他们声称是克莱门特的著述，他是第一位罗马主教，即彼得任命的第一位天主教教皇。
3.federal government 联邦政府
But Monday’s decision means that all three branches of the federal government could have a role.
但是星期一的裁决意味着联邦政府的三个分支都可以有自己的角色。
4.had no choice but to 别无选择
We had no choice but to do what we were asked.
出于无奈, 我们只得照要求的做了。
5.home state 本国
As such, you are subject to the laws of your home state regarding sweepstakes.
就这点儿论，你得遵守你家乡所在的州有关抽奖的法律。
参考译文
今天，Gordon Gaippe和Richard Rael继续讲述宪法的故事。上周，我们讲述了大会是如何就总统问题达成共识的。代表们花了几个星期的时间讨论总统的职能和权力的细节。最终决定，总统将由州议会提名的选举人选出，总统可以否决法律。如若发现总统犯有严重罪行，可以将其罢免。当时‘总统’这个称谓还没有出现，美国领导人的名称是之后才使用的。我们现在使用这个称谓是为了便于理解。大会辩论的另一个主要问题是联邦司法体系：由法院和法官组成的联邦体系。代表们对这个问题了解较多。其中34人是律师，8人是法官。有一个问题悬而未决，各州拥有自己的法院和法官体系。联邦体系需要吗？几位代表说不需要。康涅狄格州的罗·杰谢尔曼表示，现有的州法院已经足够。此外，他表示，建立联邦法院体系的成本太高。南卡罗来纳州的约翰·拉特利奇反对建立下级法院体系。但他主张成立联邦最高法院。大会对这两项提案都投了赞成票，将会有一个最高法院和一个下级法院体系。联邦最高法院负责审理联邦法律、公民权利以及外国人在美国不当行为的案件。州法院体系将继续审理涉及州法律的案件。接下来是联邦法官的任命问题。一些代表认为，法官应由国会任命。其他人认为应由总统任命。宾夕法尼亚州的詹姆斯·威尔逊支持由一人任命。他说，经验表明，集体决策无法公平或公开地任命。
约翰·拉特里奇强烈反对。他说，法官绝对不能交由总统任命。他说这样的话和君主制没什么差别。然后本杰明·富兰克林讲了一个有趣的小故事。他说，在苏格兰，法官是由律师任命的。他们总是选择最出色的律师当法官。然后削弱了他们的势力。代表们就这一问题进行了投票。最后同意建立联邦法院。该体系的细节问题剩下国会和总统。国会可以决定最高法院的法官人数，由总统任命。议会可以不时地设立下级法院，也由总统任命。1787年的整个夏天，费城制宪大会的讨论的都是基于弗吉尼亚州代表提出的政府方案。但是弗吉尼亚方案并不是唯一的方案。另一个是新泽西方案。新泽西州的代表帕特森在大会开始大约一个月后提出该方案。其他代表一眼就看出，它和弗吉尼亚方案背道而驰。弗吉尼亚方案谈到建立联邦政府。根据该法案，国家立法机构、行政机构和司法机构三权分立，权力高于地方政府。新泽西方案谈到了联邦政府。根据该方案，各州将拥有独立于联邦的权力。新泽西方案对现有的联邦条款提出了一些修改。它没有提出一个全新的政府体制。根据新泽西方案，联邦政府的立法机构将只有一个议院。各州，不论大小，均有一票。联邦政府由多人领导。不设下级联邦法院体系，它的权力将来自各州……不是人民。
新泽西方案的支持者随后谈到了费城大会的真正目的。他们表示，各州已派出代表讨论修改《联邦条例》。他们说，代表们没有权利废除《邦联条例》。其中一人说，如果《联邦条例》从根本上是错误的话，那就让我们回到各州去吧。让州赋予我们更多的谈判权力，不要自行决定。然后宾夕法尼亚州的詹姆斯·威尔逊发表了讲话。他解释了自己对大会目的的看法。他指出，大会不是就某件事情达成最终协议，而是可以就任何事情进行讨论。威尔逊还就代表们代表人民发言的权利提出了质疑。他说，朋友的意见常常被误认为是民意，难道不是吗?他指出，一些代表坚信，人民永远不会接受联邦政府。他们永远不会放弃各州的权利。威尔逊不那么肯定。他又问道：“为什么联邦政府不受欢迎？它的信用降低了吗?”每个公民享有的自由或保护会减少吗?各州公民成为美国公民之后受到的尊重会更少吗?”弗吉尼亚的埃德蒙·伦道夫接着发言。他说，大会别无选择，只能建立联邦政府。不采取必要措施拯救国家就是叛国。他说，只有一个新的联邦政府才能发挥作用。伦道夫表示：“现在是建立联邦政府的最后时刻。”“错过这个机会，人们将失去所有的希望。”关于新泽西方案辩论于6月16日星期六举行。接下来的星期一，他们又听到了另一个政府计划。
该计划由纽约代表亚历山大·汉密尔顿提出。沉默寡言的汉密尔顿，这一天讲了五个小时。汉密尔顿说，他并没有把自己的想法作为正式提案提出。但是他说，这些想法可以是对维吉尼亚方案的修改，然后他读到细节。汉密尔顿说，美国应该只有一位领导人，由选举人选出。他可以否决任何法律，而且他的否决不能被推翻。他将终生为国效力。接下来，他说，国会将由两个议院组成，上议院被称为参议院。下议院被称为众议院。参议员与总统一样，将由选举人选举产生。众议员由人民直接选举产生，任期三年。然后汉密尔顿谈到了美国。他建议废除各州现有的许多权力。州长将由联邦政府任命。各州也不得拥有自己的军队。汉密尔顿确信，当国家变得更强大时，现有的政府形式是没有用的。他认为美国应该遵循英国的政府体制。他说英国的体制是世界上最好的。汉密尔顿的演说滔滔不绝，没有人打断或提问。历史学家表示，这令人惊讶。汉密尔顿的想法很极端。他对英国政府的公开支持不受欢迎。大会上没有人认可他的发言。但是天气一直很热，汉密尔顿演讲时间很长，代表们同意改天再议。
译文为可可英语翻译，未经授权请勿转载！
