评论
打印
So recently, President Trump made an odd comment about the presidential pardon.
话说，最近，特朗普总统就总统特赦发表了奇怪的评论。
“The pardons are a very positive thing for a president.
“特赦对总统来说是一件很好的事情。
I think you see the way I’m using them.
想必大家都已经看到我怎么用这个权利的了吧。
And yes, I do have an absolute right to pardon myself.
没错，我确实有绝对的权利赦免我自己。
But I'll never have to do it because I didn't do anything wrong.
但我永远不会这样做，因为我并没有做错什么。
“As bizarre as that may sound, Trump isn’t entirely wrong.
“尽管听起来很奇怪，但特朗普说的也不是全无道理。
Since taking office, Donald Trump has pardoned five people.
上任以来，唐纳德·特朗普已经特赦了五个人。
The act of pardoning criminals doesn’t create many political allies.
对罪犯实行特赦并不能因此带来很多政治盟友。
So presidents usually wait until later in their term to issue pardons.
所以总统们往往会等到任期后期才使用这项权利。
The past two presidents only began granting pardons late in their second year.
过去两届总统都是在任期第二年下半年才开始特赦罪犯。
Trump, on the other hand, has already begun to exercise his pardon power.
另一方面，特朗普已经开始行使他的赦免权。
And with several people close to the president being investigated by the special council, Trump’s pardon power might come in handy.
随着几位接近总统的人被特别委员会调查，特朗普的赦免权可能派上用场。
Some argue that by issuing pardons this early in his presidency,
有些人认为，在他担任总统期间尽早发布赦免，
Trump is sending signal that he is willing to bail out any of his political allies that might be targeted in the future by the Russian investigation.
特朗普现在释放了一个信号：他愿意保释任何将来可能成为“俄罗斯调查”调查对象的政治盟友。
So what does the US Constitution have to say about the president’s power to pardon?
那么，美国《宪法》对总统的特赦权持怎样的看法呢？
The Constitution provides specifically for the president's pardon power.
宪法明确规定了总统具有赦免权。
It says that the president may pardon individual offenses, federal offenses, not necessarily state offenses
规定总统可以赦免个人罪行或者联邦罪行，不一定就是国家罪行，
and he cannot use the pardon power to avoid impeachment.
而且他不能使用赦免权来避免自己被弹劾。
But as with most powers bestowed by the US Constitution, the presidential pardon comes with checks and balances
但正如美国宪法赋予的大多数权力一样，总统的特赦权也伴随着制衡。
One of the principles underlying a separation of powers is that no one should be a judge in his own cause.
分权的基本原则之一是，任何人都不能在自己背负案件时担任自己的法官。
So we have a system with a separation of powers and that separation of powers is one of checks and balances.
因此我们国家才成立了权力分立的制度，也即是三权分立。
The first possible check to Trump’s pardoning power could come through the judicial branch.
特朗普的赦免权可能率先会受到司法部分的约束。
When presidents take office, they’re bound by the Constitution to take the oath of office.
就职时总统就要受到宪法的约束，因为他们必须宣誓。
And in that oath, they make a promise to: “Faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.”
在宣誓时他们必须承诺：“忠实履行美利坚合众国之总统职务。”
That language of faithful execution —
忠实履行总统职务的语言 -
the idea is that this language migrated from private law documents that limited trustees, limited corporate executives
这里面的理念是，这种语言是从私人法律文件中借鉴而来的，那些文件是用于约束受托人，约束有限公司的高管，
that they couldn't embezzle, they couldn't self deal, they couldn't use their powers to benefit themselves to the detriment of others.
让他们不能擅自挪用资产，不能擅自成交生意，不能损人利己，以权谋私。
A future prosecutor could go into court,
加入原告站上了法庭，
Trump would walk in and say look I signed the pardon, with the papers then say look, look at my signature, the way he always does.
特朗普会走上来拿出一堆文件说，这是我签署的特赦令，上面有我的签名，他总是爱搞这一套。
And the judge says sorry that piece of paper is not legally valid,
法官则表示，那张文件并不具备法律效力，
because it violated the part of the Constitution that requires faithful execution.
因为违反了宪法中对总统要忠实履行总统职责的规定。
The next check to Trump’s pardoning power could come from the legislative branch — from Congress.
约束特朗普特赦权的第二股力量可能会来自立法部门，也就是国会。
There’s a clause in the Constitution that basically says
宪法中有一个条款大致的意思是
Congress has the power to make laws to ensure that the Constitution is followed by all branches of the government
国会有权制定法律，以确保各政府部门遵守宪法。
So the argument is that if Congress has the ability to regulate the means,
因此，争论的焦点是，如果国会拥有规范手段的能力，
they cannot take away the pardon power, but they may be able
他们就不能夺走总统的特赦权，但在必要和适当的时候他们可能还是能够
if it's necessary and proper to limit, for example, corrupt pardons or illegal pardons that would otherwise be unconstitutional, for example.
限制对腐败官员啦，或者违宪等非法行为的谅解。
It's possible, let's say the president pardoned everyone,
这是可能的，举个例子，如果总统赦免了所有
who was white because for racist reasons for example, that would clearly violate the Constitution.
种族歧视的白人犯人。这种做法显然是和宪法相违背的。
There's almost no way to get that into court, the only response here can actually come from Congress.
这种问题基本上不可能在法庭上解决，唯一可能的办法其实来自国会。
The most obvious check to Trump’s pardoning power, though,
然而，特朗普赦免权最明显的约束力，
is one that Trump’s own legal team has publicly recognized:
是特朗普自己的法务团队也曾公开承认的一种约束力：
“The president of the United States pardoning himself would just be unthinkable
美国总统赦免自己简直是难以想象的事情，
and it would lead to probably, an immediate impeachment.
这种做法可能，可能会立即引起弹劾反应。
Trump can pardon whoever he wants —
特朗普想赦免谁就能赦免谁-
even if that means shielding his political allies from the Mueller investigation and even, plausibly, himself.
即使这意味着保护他的政治盟友，甚至包括他自己，免受穆勒的调查。
But he would almost certainly face impeachment hearings in Congress for doing so.
但这样一来他几乎肯定会被送上国会弹劾听证会。
And as the Constitution makes clear — that pardoning power cannot be used to shield from impeachment.
正如宪法明确规定的那样 - 总统的特赦权不能用来避免弹劾。
So, in some ways, voters themselves serve as a powerful check against the president's pardoning power.
所以，从某些角度来看，选民自己充当了一股强大的约束总统特赦权的的约束力。
But of course this all depends on Congress’s willingness to move forward with impeachment, should the need arise.
当然了，这一切都要取决于国会是否愿意在需要时推进弹劾。
Elections are a crucial check because all of the departments are the people's servants, ultimately.
选举是一项至关重要的约束力，因为所有这些政府部门说到底还是人民的公仆。
I think it's a tremendous political mistake myself for him to have urged that he has the absolute power
在我看来，他要求自己拥有绝对的权利这种做法是巨大的政治错误，
because no one in America thinks we have a monarch whether you love Donald Trump or not.
因为在美国，不管你喜不喜欢唐纳德·特朗普，都没有人会觉得这是一个君主制国家。
