評論
打印
Can a President be removed from office if there wasn't a crime?
如果總統沒有犯罪，是否還能免除其職務？
Beneath the heated partisan language surrounding President Donald Trump's impeachment trial lies a constitutional question:
特朗普總統的彈劾審判引發了激烈的黨派言辭，然而這些言辭背后還隱藏著一個事關憲法的問題：
Can a President be removed from office if he hasn't committed a crime?
即便總統沒有犯罪，是否還能免除其職務？
That's the key question facing the Senate now that its formal trial began in earnest on Jan. 21.
這一問題也是參議院面臨的核心問題，鑒于參議院已于1月21日展開了對特朗普的正式審判。
The fate of Trump's presidency and the carefully calibrated balance of power between the White House and Congress hang on the answer.
問題的答案不僅事關特朗普的總統任期，還會影響到日后白宮與國會之間精心維持的權力平衡。
House Democrats say Trump twisted U.S. foreign policy to try to stay in office,
眾議院民主黨人表示，為了連任，特朗普擾亂了美國的外交政策，
withholding defense and diplomatic aid to Ukraine to get the country to announce investigations into his political rival Joe Biden.
為了讓烏克蘭宣布對其政治對手喬·拜登展開調查扣押了對該國的國防外交援助。
Trump's lawyers dispute that framing of what happened—
特朗普的律師駁斥了民主黨對事情原委的假設——
but regardless of the President's motivations, they say, there is no law saying anything he did was illegal.
他們聲稱，無論總統當時是出于何種動機，沒有任何法律表明他存在任何違法行為。
"House Democrats newly invented ‘abuse of power' theory collapses at the threshold
“眾議院民主黨最近捏造的‘濫用職權'之說已經不攻自破，
because it fails to allege any violation of law whatsoever,"
因為他們的這一書佛啊沒有指出（特朗普的行為存在）任何意義上的違法之處，”
Trump's lawyers wrote in a brief filed on Jan. 20,
特朗普的律師在1月20日提交的一份簡報中寫道。
arguing that the impeachment trial must concern only the legality of the President's actions,
他們聲稱，彈劾審判必須只考慮總統行為的合法性，
not the appropriateness of the possible reasons he undertook them.
而非他采取這些舉措背后可能的原因是否恰當。
In other words, Trump's lawyers argue, his pressure on Ukraine fell within the presidency's powers to make foreign policy,
換句話說，他對烏克蘭施壓的做法并未逾越總統制定外交政策的職權范圍，
whether he was doing it to root out corruption, as Trump has said, or for political advantage, as Democrats allege.
無論他采取這一措施是為了鏟除腐敗，像特朗普所說的那樣，還是為了政治利益，像民主黨聲稱的那樣，特朗普的律師辯稱。
The other side flatly rejects this reading of the Constitution.
民主黨則斷然否決了特朗普律師對憲法的這一解讀。
The "assertion that impeachable offenses must involve criminal conduct is refuted by two centuries of precedent
“兩個世紀以來的彈劾慣例早已否定可被彈劾的惡行必須包含犯罪行為在內的論斷，
and, if accepted, would have intolerable consequences," House impeachment managers wrote in response on Jan. 21.
如果接受這一論斷，必然引發令人難以容忍的后果，”眾議院彈劾經理在1月21日的回應中寫道。
The debate among constitutional experts over what constitutes an impeachable offense is robust.
憲法專家就可彈劾的行為含有哪些要素展開了激烈的討論。
But the idea that impeachable conduct need not be an actual crime is well established.
盡管如此，可彈劾的行為無需包含實際的犯罪行為這一觀點依然得到了廣泛的認同。
In the Federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote that impeachment should apply to cases involving
亞歷山大·漢密爾頓曾在聯邦憲法的文件中寫道，彈劾適用于
"the abuse or violation of some public trust" and "injuries done immediately to the society itself."
涉及“濫用或違背某些方面的公眾信任”以及“立即對社會造成了傷害”的情況。
Congress has sometimes interpreted the Constitution in this way in the modern era too.
進入當代社會以后，國會有時也會這樣解讀憲法。
Even Trump's lawyer Alan Dershowitz sounded a different tune in 1998, during President Bill Clinton's impeachment,
就連特朗普的律師艾倫·德肖維茨都曾在1998年比爾·克林頓總統彈劾案期間發出不同聲音，
arguing at that time that "if you have somebody who completely
聲稱“如果有人濫用民眾的信任，
corrupts the office of (the) President and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty,
對我們的自由構成了極大的威脅而徹底腐化了總統辦公室，
you don't need a technical crime" to be impeached.
那無需違法犯罪行為”就應對他實施彈劾。
As Trump's trial began, Dershowitz tweeted that he wants to "retract" that previous statement.
對特朗的審判開始后，德肖維茨發表推文表示，他想“收回”1998年的聲明。
Fortunately for Trump, no Congress in the country's history ever explicitly outlawed using the power of the presidency to help win re-election.
好在，對特朗普而言，美國歷史上從未有國會明確宣布，利用總統職權助選連任為違法操作。
Now Senators will have to decide whether, in the end, that's all that matters.
如今，參議員們不得不決定，歸根結底，這一法律背景是否是最重要的證據。
譯文由可可原創，僅供學習交流使用，未經許可請勿轉載。
