(单词翻译:单击)
听力文本
Today we continue with the convention in seventeen eighty-seven where it was written. Here are Frank Oliver and Richard Rael. Last week, we told about the most serious question facing the convention in Philadelphia. It was the question of state representation in the national government. Would small states and large states have an equal voice? The convention could not agree on a plan. So it created a special committee to develop a compromise. The convention suspended its meetings for the July Fourth Independence Day holiday. But the special committee continued its work. When the convention re-opened, the delegates heard the committee's report. This was its proposal: The national legislature would have two houses. Representation in one house would be decided by population. Each state would have one representative for every forty thousand people in that state. Representation in the second house would be equal. Each state would have the same number of representatives as the other states. It was called "The Great Compromise." Delegates knew that the success or failure of the convention depended on this agreement. The debate between large states and small states lasted for weeks. The small states truly believed they would lose power to the large states in a national government.
Several times, they threatened to leave the convention in protest. William Paterson of New Jersey, a small state, spoke. "Some of the assembled gentlemen have made it known that if the small states do not agree to a plan, the large states will form a union among themselves. Well, let them unite if they please! They cannot force others to unite." Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, old and in poor health, sat writing quietly during the debate. Now he asked that his words be heard. Franklin asked James Wilson, also of Pennsylvania, to read his statement. "Why," he asked, "do the small states think they will be swallowed if the big states have more representatives in the national legislature? There is no reason for this fear. The big states will gain nothing if they swallow up the small states. They know this. And so, I believe, they will not try." For a long time, the delegates could not agree on representation in the legislature. So they debated other parts of the proposal. One involved the names of the two houses of the legislature. The delegates used several names. Most, however, spoke of them simply as the First Branch and the Second Branch. We will speak of them by the names used today: the House of Representatives and the Senate. Next came the questions: Who could be elected to the House and Senate?
Who would elect them? Delegates did not take long to decide the first question. Members of the House, they agreed, must be at least twenty-five years old. They must be a citizen of the United States for seven years. And, at the time of election, they must live in the state in which they are chosen. Members of the Senate must be at least thirty years old. They must be a citizen of the United States for nine years. And, at the time of election, they must live in the state in which they are chosen. How long would lawmakers serve? Roger Sherman of Connecticut thought representatives to the House should be elected every year. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts agreed. He thought a longer term would lead to a dictatorship. James Madison of Virginia protested. "It will take almost one year," he said, "just for lawmakers to travel to and from the seat of government!" Madison proposed a three-year term. But the delegates finally agreed on two years. There were many ideas about the term for senators. A few delegates thought they should be elected for life. In the end, the convention agreed on a Senate term of six years. Next came a debate about the lawmakers' pay. How much should they get?
Or should they be paid at all? Some delegates thought the states should pay their representatives to the national legislature. Others said the national legislature should decide its own pay and take it from the national treasury. That idea, James Madison argued, was shameful. He thought the amount should be set by the Constitution. Again, Madison lost the argument. The Constitution says that lawmakers will be paid for their services and that the money will come from the national treasury. The question of who should elect the lawmakers raised an interesting issue. It concerned democracy. In seventeen eighty-seven, the word "democracy" meant something very different from what it means today. To many of the men meeting in Philadelphia, it meant mob rule. To give power to the people was an invitation to anarchy. "The people," Roger Sherman declared, "should have as little to do as possible with the government." Elbridge Gerry said, "The evils we have seen around us flow from too much democracy." From such statements, one can see why the delegates sharply debated any proposal calling for the people to elect the national lawmakers. Sherman, Gerry, and others wanted the state legislatures to choose national lawmakers. George Mason of Virginia argued for popular elections.
"The people will be represented," Mason said, "so they should choose their representatives." James Wilson agreed. "I wish to see the power of the government flow immediately from the lawful source of that power. . .the people." James Madison stated firmly that the people must elect at least one branch of the national legislature. That, he said, was a basic condition for free government. The majority of the convention agreed with Mason, Wilson, and Madison. The delegates agreed that members of the House of Representatives should be elected directly by the people. The convention now considered the method of choosing senators. Four ideas were proposed. Senators could be elected by the House, by the president, by the state legislatures, or by the people. Arguments for and against were similar to those for choosing representatives for the House. In the end, a majority of the delegates agreed that the state legislatures would choose the senators. And that is what the Constitution says. It remained that way for more than one hundred years.
In nineteen thirteen, the states approved the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment permits the people to vote directly to elect the senators. Finally, the time came for the convention to face the issue of representation in the House and Senate. The large states wanted representation based on population. The small states wanted equal representation. The delegates had voted on the issue several times since the convention began. But both sides stood firm. Yet they knew they could not continue to vote forever, day after day. On July fifth, the Grand Committee presented a two-part compromise based on Roger Sherman's ideas. The compromise provided something for large states and something for small states. It called for representation based on population in the House and equal representation in the Senate. The committee said both parts of the compromise must be accepted or both rejected. On July sixteenth, the convention voted on the issue for the last time. It accepted the Great Compromise.
重点解析
1.agree on对…取得一致意见
You and your spouse do not have to agree on politics.
你和你的配偶不必在政治上保持一致。
2.based on以…为基础，基于；改编自
Each of us expresses goals based on our center.
我们每个人都基于我们的中心表达目标。
3.Senate参议院，上院；（古罗马的）元老院
Brutus declaimed from the steps of the Roman senate building.
(罗马贵族派政治家)布鲁图在古罗马元老院大楼的台阶上发表慷慨激昂的演说。
4.too much太多
He's still sleeping; he was surfeited with too much wine last night.
他昨晚上酒喝得太多了，到现在还在睡觉。
5.depended on取决于
It all depended on the rate of growth.
这完全取决于经济的增长速度。
参考译文
今天，我们继续讲述1787年大会的故事。弗兰克·奥利弗和理查德·拉尔为您讲述。上周，我们谈到了费城大会面临的最严峻的问题。就是各州在国会的代表权问题。各州人数不同，发言权会一样吗？大会未能达成共识。因此成立了一个专门委员会来制定一个折中方案。大会暂停了7月4日美国独立纪念日的会议。专门委员会继续工作。大会再次召开时，代表们听取了委员会的提案，该提案指出：国会将由两个议院组成。其中一个议院的代表人数将由人数决定。各州每4万人将推选出一名代表。另一个议院的各州代表人数一样。每个州的代表人数将与其它州的代表人数一样。该提案被称为“大妥协”。代表们知道，这份提案将决定着大会的成败。大州和小州辩论了好几个星期。人数少的小州认为，他们会在权力上输给人数多的大州。这些小州好几次威胁要退出大会以示抗议。新泽西州的威廉·帕特森发表了讲话。“与会人士明确表示，如果小州不同意该提案，大州将组成一个联盟，如果他们愿意的话，让他们联合起来吧！但他们不能强迫其他人加入。”来自宾夕法尼亚州的本杰明·富兰克林年事已高，身体状况不佳，他在辩论中静静地坐着写着什么。现在他要求大家听他说。富兰克林请同样来自宾夕法尼亚州的詹姆斯·威尔逊宣读他的声明。
富兰克林问道：“为什么小州认为，如果大州在国会拥有更多代表，它们就会被吞并呢?这种恐惧是没有道理的，大州吞并小州得不到任何好处，他们知道这一点，因此，我相信他们不会去尝试。”在很长一段时间里，代表们就国会的代表权问题上不能达成共识。因此他们讨论提案的其它部分。其中一部分涉及到国会两院的名称，代表们用了好几个名字。然而，大多数人只是简单地称之为第一分院和第二个分院。叙述上我们将采用今天的名称：众议院和参议院。接下来的问题是众议院和参议院议员的议员资格？由谁来推选？第一个问题很快就解决了，代表们一致认为，众议院的议员必须至少年满25周岁。身为美国公民的时间必须长达七年，而且众议员必须是所在州的居民。参议院议员必须年满30岁。身为美国公民的时间必须长达九年。而且，在选举的时候，他们必须生活在自己被选中的州。国会议员的任期是多长？康涅狄格州的罗杰·谢尔曼认为，众议院的代表应该每年选举一次。马萨诸塞州的埃尔布里奇·格里对此表示同意。他认为任期太久会导致独裁。弗吉尼亚州的詹姆斯·麦迪逊提出抗议。他说：“议员仅仅从家乡到国会往返一次，就需要将近一年的时间。”麦迪逊提议任期三年。但是代表们最终同意任期为两年。
关于参议员的任期有许多不同的看法，有些人甚至认为参议员应该定为终身制。最后，大会同意参议院任期六年。接下来是关于议员薪酬的问题，议员应该得到多少薪酬？或者应该得到薪酬吗?一些代表认为薪酬应该由其所在州支付。还有人说，国会应该自行决定薪酬，并从国库中提取。詹姆斯·麦迪逊认为，这种想法是可耻的，他认为数额应该由宪法规定。麦迪逊再次输掉了辩论。宪法规定，议员的服务将得到报酬，这些钱将来自国库。国会议员由谁来选举产生了一个有趣的问题，该问题涉及到民主。1787年，“民主”一词的含义与今天的含义大相径庭。对许多参加在费城制宪大会的人来说，民主意味着暴民统治，把权力交给人民，就会导致无政府状态。罗杰·谢尔曼宣称，“人民应该尽可能少地与参与政治。”埃尔布里奇·格里说：“我们周围看到的罪恶就是源于过度的民主。”从这些声明中，我们可以看出，为什么代表们对要求人民选举国会议员的任何提案讨论的这么激烈了。谢尔曼、格里和其他一些人希望州立法机构选择联邦议员。弗吉尼亚州的乔治·梅森主张普选。梅森说：“国会议员代表的是人民，所以他们应该选择自己的代表。”詹姆斯·威尔逊表示同意。“我希望看到政府的权力来自合法的途径……人民。”詹姆斯·麦迪逊坚定地表示，国会两院中至少有一个院由人民选举产生。
他说，这是自由政府的基本条件。大会的大多数成员都同意梅森、威尔逊和麦迪逊的观点。代表们一致认为，众议院的议员应该由人民直接选举产生。大会现在审议了参议员的推举方法，提出了四种观点。参议员可以由众议院、总统、州议会或人民选举产生。赞成和反对的理由与选择众议员的理由相似。最后，大多数代表同意由州议会选出参议员。并将此写入了宪法，一直持续了一百多年。1913年，各州通过了宪法第十七条修正案。这项修正案允许人民直接投票选举参议员。最后，该是解决参众两院代表权问题的时候了。大州希望根据人口分配代表权，小国要求代表权平等。大会开始以来，代表们已经就这个问题进行了几次投票。但双方立场都很坚定。但他们知道，他们不能一直这样僵持下去。7月5日，大委员会根据罗杰·谢尔曼的观点提出了一份折中方案。该方案为大州和小州就这一问题提出了解决办法。它要求众议院的代表人数和参议院的代表人数平等。委员会说，妥协必须被接受，或者被拒绝。7月16日，大会对这一问题进行了最后一次投票，他们接受了这一“大妥协”。
译文为可可英语翻译，未经授权请勿转载！
