QA问答：美国宪法应该改革吗?（一）
正文翻译
Should the US Constitution be reformed?
美国宪法应该改革吗?
Should the US Constitution be reformed?
美国宪法应该改革吗?
评论翻译
Matthew Smedberg
Yes.
The U.S. Constitution was a groundbreaking work, but we've learned a lot as a global community in the intervening couple of hundred years.
As a structural matter, the frxrs of the U.S. Constitution were (rightly) concerned with safeguards against the collapse of the rule of law. Their countermeasure to this was formal separation of powers into separate branches, two of which are elected (in separate elections) and one appointed by the other two.
However, as an empirical matter, nations with strong independent executive branches tend to have more unstable democratic institutions, not less. Now, one counter-argument to this claim is that the empirical evidence mostly comes from Latin America, and there are confounding factors there, such as the political non-independence of the armed forces. However, in the U.S., the ability of the government to do its job depends structurally on at least the legislative and executive branches having each others' backs on questions that are the technical purview of one or the other.
是的
《美国宪法》是一部开创性的著作，但在这几百年里，作为一个全球社区，我们学到了很多东西。
作为一个结构性问题，美国宪法的制定者（正确地）与防止法治崩溃的保障措施有关。他们对此采取的对策是将权力正式分离为不同的分支，其中两个分支是选举产生的（在单独的选举中），一个由另外两个分支任命。
然而，根据经验，拥有强大独立行政部门的国家往往拥有更不稳定的民主制度，而不会是更稳定。现在，对这一说法的一个反驳论点，经验证据大多来自拉丁美洲，那里有一些令人困惑的因素，比如武装部队在政治上是不独立状态。然而，在美国，政府履行职责的能力至少在结构上取决于立法部门和行政部门在属于各自法律权限的问题上相互支持。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Yes.
The U.S. Constitution was a groundbreaking work, but we've learned a lot as a global community in the intervening couple of hundred years.
As a structural matter, the frxrs of the U.S. Constitution were (rightly) concerned with safeguards against the collapse of the rule of law. Their countermeasure to this was formal separation of powers into separate branches, two of which are elected (in separate elections) and one appointed by the other two.
However, as an empirical matter, nations with strong independent executive branches tend to have more unstable democratic institutions, not less. Now, one counter-argument to this claim is that the empirical evidence mostly comes from Latin America, and there are confounding factors there, such as the political non-independence of the armed forces. However, in the U.S., the ability of the government to do its job depends structurally on at least the legislative and executive branches having each others' backs on questions that are the technical purview of one or the other.
是的
《美国宪法》是一部开创性的著作，但在这几百年里，作为一个全球社区，我们学到了很多东西。
作为一个结构性问题，美国宪法的制定者（正确地）与防止法治崩溃的保障措施有关。他们对此采取的对策是将权力正式分离为不同的分支，其中两个分支是选举产生的（在单独的选举中），一个由另外两个分支任命。
然而，根据经验，拥有强大独立行政部门的国家往往拥有更不稳定的民主制度，而不会是更稳定。现在，对这一说法的一个反驳论点，经验证据大多来自拉丁美洲，那里有一些令人困惑的因素，比如武装部队在政治上是不独立状态。然而，在美国，政府履行职责的能力至少在结构上取决于立法部门和行政部门在属于各自法律权限的问题上相互支持。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
For many periods of U.S. history, Congress did in fact have the President's back when the President undertook foreign policy, and the President did in fact enforce laws that he found repugnant. This was an informal norm, however, and not any kind of legal requirement. In fact, as the past 20 years of U.S. history have shown, there are deep game-theoretic incentives for the legislature to oppose the executive when they are controlled by opposing parties.The first order of a structural rewrite of U.S. constitutional order should be aligning the incentives of the branches of government to work together towards a coherent policy outcome.
In practice, this means one of two things: either have the executive branch depend on the legislative majority/governing coalition (see Great Britain, for example), or a subordinate executive branch without a president, comprised of career civil servants who are supposed to be nonpartisan ( see China).
事实上，在美国历史上的许多时期，当总统制定外交政策时，国会确实是总统的后盾，总统也确实执行了他认为令人反感的法律。然而，这是一种非正式规范，而不是任何形式的法律要求。事实上，正如美国过去20年的历史所表明的那样，当立法机关被对立党派控制时，立法机关反对行政机关有深刻的博弈论动机。从结构上改写美国宪法秩序的第一步，应该是调整政府各部门的激励机制，共同努力实现连贯的政策成果。
在实践中，这意味着两种情况中的一种:要么让行政部门依赖于立法多数派/执政联盟(例如，参见英国)，要么弄出不设总统的下属行政部门，由职业公务员组成，而且他们应该是无党派的(参见中国)。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
In practice, this means one of two things: either have the executive branch depend on the legislative majority/governing coalition (see Great Britain, for example), or a subordinate executive branch without a president, comprised of career civil servants who are supposed to be nonpartisan ( see China).
事实上，在美国历史上的许多时期，当总统制定外交政策时，国会确实是总统的后盾，总统也确实执行了他认为令人反感的法律。然而，这是一种非正式规范，而不是任何形式的法律要求。事实上，正如美国过去20年的历史所表明的那样，当立法机关被对立党派控制时，立法机关反对行政机关有深刻的博弈论动机。从结构上改写美国宪法秩序的第一步，应该是调整政府各部门的激励机制，共同努力实现连贯的政策成果。
在实践中，这意味着两种情况中的一种:要么让行政部门依赖于立法多数派/执政联盟(例如，参见英国)，要么弄出不设总统的下属行政部门，由职业公务员组成，而且他们应该是无党派的(参见中国)。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Secondly: the U.S. has a problem with being in perpetual campaign mode. Much of the blame for this can be laid at the feet of our regularly scheduled elections. At the very least, the legislative elections should occur at irregular intervals (triggered, for example, by failure to pass a budget) and it should be illegal to do any kind of campaigning before an election has been called -- including fundraising, or spending any funds raised outside the electoral period.
Thirdly: currently every seat (in the House, Senate, as well as state legislatures) is elected in a single-seat election. This tends to have a lot of bad effects, like suppression of minority groups . It's far better to have multiple seats per district, filled using one of the "proportional representation" methods. (I personally favor some flavor of "single transferable vote".)
第二：美国一直处于竞选模式，这是一个问题。这在很大程度上可以归咎于我们定期举行的选举。至少，立法选举应该不定期举行（例如，由于未能通过预算而引发），在选举之前进行任何形式的竞选活动都是非法的，包括筹款或在选举期间之外使用募集的资金。
第三：目前，每个席位(众议院、参议院和州立法机构)都是通过单一席位选举产生的。这往往会产生很多不良影响，如压制少数民族。每个地区有多个席位，使用“比例代表制”方法凑齐这个人数要好得多。（我个人更喜欢“按比例代表制用单一可转换票”的风格。）
Thirdly: currently every seat (in the House, Senate, as well as state legislatures) is elected in a single-seat election. This tends to have a lot of bad effects, like suppression of minority groups . It's far better to have multiple seats per district, filled using one of the "proportional representation" methods. (I personally favor some flavor of "single transferable vote".)
第二：美国一直处于竞选模式，这是一个问题。这在很大程度上可以归咎于我们定期举行的选举。至少，立法选举应该不定期举行（例如，由于未能通过预算而引发），在选举之前进行任何形式的竞选活动都是非法的，包括筹款或在选举期间之外使用募集的资金。
第三：目前，每个席位(众议院、参议院和州立法机构)都是通过单一席位选举产生的。这往往会产生很多不良影响，如压制少数民族。每个地区有多个席位，使用“比例代表制”方法凑齐这个人数要好得多。（我个人更喜欢“按比例代表制用单一可转换票”的风格。）
Now: none of these structural changes will guarantee a well-functioning government. In fact, together they will tend to ensure that if a cray-cray party (like today's Republican Party) gets a majority in the legislature, then they can basically do what they want. That's democracy for you -- I'm glad in practice that Obama has the power to stymie a GOP majority in both houses of Congress, but at the same time, if America keeps GOP majorities to both houses of Congress, eventually that ought to turn into policy.[2]
[1] And no, you can't get rid of parties, and you shouldn't try. Power is exercised by coalitions, not individuals.
[2] Yes, yes, I know that the majority of voters have actually voted for Democrats for the legislature. My point is that when you put a system in place for apportioning legislative seats, eventually you have to trust that the system apportions them correctly.
现在：这些结构性改革都不能保证政府运转良好。事实上，他们将共同确保，如果一个疯狂的政党（比如今天的共和党）在立法机构中获得多数席位，那么他们基本上可以为所欲为。这就是你们的民主——我很高兴奥巴马在实践中有能力阻止共和党在国会两院占多数，但与此同时，如果美国继续维持共和党在国会两院占多数的局面，最终这应该会变成政策。
[1] 不，你不能放弃政党，你不应该尝试。权力由联盟行使，而不是由个人行使。
[2] 是的，我知道大多数选民实际上都投票给了立法机构的民主党人。我的观点是，当你建立一个分配立法席位的制度时，最终你必须相信这个制度会正确分配席位。
[1] And no, you can't get rid of parties, and you shouldn't try. Power is exercised by coalitions, not individuals.
[2] Yes, yes, I know that the majority of voters have actually voted for Democrats for the legislature. My point is that when you put a system in place for apportioning legislative seats, eventually you have to trust that the system apportions them correctly.
现在：这些结构性改革都不能保证政府运转良好。事实上，他们将共同确保，如果一个疯狂的政党（比如今天的共和党）在立法机构中获得多数席位，那么他们基本上可以为所欲为。这就是你们的民主——我很高兴奥巴马在实践中有能力阻止共和党在国会两院占多数，但与此同时，如果美国继续维持共和党在国会两院占多数的局面，最终这应该会变成政策。
[1] 不，你不能放弃政党，你不应该尝试。权力由联盟行使，而不是由个人行使。
[2] 是的，我知道大多数选民实际上都投票给了立法机构的民主党人。我的观点是，当你建立一个分配立法席位的制度时，最终你必须相信这个制度会正确分配席位。
Jason Lancaster
"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years." - Thomas Jefferson
I loathe the use of quotes in political conversations, but in this case I've made an exception. Jefferson - arguably an architect of our Constitution, if not heavily influential - believed that our Constitution should be reformed regularly.
While this was clearly an idyllic pronouncement (Jefferson probably understood better than anyone just how impractical this would be), his point is clear: As time goes by, our laws require revision. What seemed so tremendously important a generation ago (or 10 generations ago) may no longer be relevant.
“每一部宪法，每一部法律，都会在十九年后自然失效。”-托马斯·杰斐逊
我讨厌在政治对话中使用引语，但这次我破例了。杰斐逊——可以说是我们宪法的缔造者，如果不是很有影响力的话，他认为我们的宪法应该定期改革。
虽然这显然是一个田园诗般的声明（杰斐逊可能比任何人都更清楚这是多么不切实际），但他的观点很明确：随着时间的推移，我们的法律需要修改。在上一代人(或10代人之前)看来极其重要的东西可能不再具有相关性。
"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years." - Thomas Jefferson
I loathe the use of quotes in political conversations, but in this case I've made an exception. Jefferson - arguably an architect of our Constitution, if not heavily influential - believed that our Constitution should be reformed regularly.
While this was clearly an idyllic pronouncement (Jefferson probably understood better than anyone just how impractical this would be), his point is clear: As time goes by, our laws require revision. What seemed so tremendously important a generation ago (or 10 generations ago) may no longer be relevant.
“每一部宪法，每一部法律，都会在十九年后自然失效。”-托马斯·杰斐逊
我讨厌在政治对话中使用引语，但这次我破例了。杰斐逊——可以说是我们宪法的缔造者，如果不是很有影响力的话，他认为我们的宪法应该定期改革。
虽然这显然是一个田园诗般的声明（杰斐逊可能比任何人都更清楚这是多么不切实际），但他的观点很明确：随着时间的推移，我们的法律需要修改。在上一代人(或10代人之前)看来极其重要的东西可能不再具有相关性。
Take the 3rd amendment - do we need it in contemporary America? Would anyone really miss it? Or the 4th amendment - is it sufficient to protect us in the information age? Or the 10th amendment, which was basically subjugated by the interstate commerce clause...should we just get rid of it, or should we clarify things a bit and restore some govt. functions to the states?
What about the rules of order in the Senate and the House - should the filibuster be allowed? Should the Senate be free to block any and all Presidential appointments indefinitely, or should their be some sort of time limit? Should each state be allowed to gerrymander house districts? Why the hell are elections held on a Tuesday and not a Saturday? Why don't we have a national referendum process?
The list of questions goes on.
以第三修正案为例——当代美国需要它吗？有人真的会怀念它吗？还是第四修正案——它足以在信息时代保护我们吗？或者第十修正案基本上被州际贸易条款所取代……我们是应该放弃它，还是应该澄清一些事情，恢复各州的一些政府职能?
那么参议院和众议院的议事规则呢——是否应该允许阻挠议事？参议院是否应该自由地无限期地阻止任何和所有总统的任命，还是应该有某种时间限制？是否应该允许每个州对住宅区进行选区划分？为什么选举在星期二而不是星期六举行？我们为什么不进行全民公投呢？
问题清单还在继续。
What about the rules of order in the Senate and the House - should the filibuster be allowed? Should the Senate be free to block any and all Presidential appointments indefinitely, or should their be some sort of time limit? Should each state be allowed to gerrymander house districts? Why the hell are elections held on a Tuesday and not a Saturday? Why don't we have a national referendum process?
The list of questions goes on.
以第三修正案为例——当代美国需要它吗？有人真的会怀念它吗？还是第四修正案——它足以在信息时代保护我们吗？或者第十修正案基本上被州际贸易条款所取代……我们是应该放弃它，还是应该澄清一些事情，恢复各州的一些政府职能?
那么参议院和众议院的议事规则呢——是否应该允许阻挠议事？参议院是否应该自由地无限期地阻止任何和所有总统的任命，还是应该有某种时间限制？是否应该允许每个州对住宅区进行选区划分？为什么选举在星期二而不是星期六举行？我们为什么不进行全民公投呢？
问题清单还在继续。
Unfortunately, when the Constitution is discussed in contemporary politics, the discussion often reverts to lionizing the document as one of the world's greatest accomplishments. Typically conservative commentators speak with almost tearful reverence for the slave owning, tax-dodging smugglers that wrote the document, referring to them as the "founding fathers."
To belabor a point, reform is a good thing. Clinging to increasingly dated notions of proper governance are not.
The good news is that a Constitutional reset is all but certain. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it is inevitable. Just like no structure can be expected to stand forever, it's implausible to suggest that the Constitution will be sufficient to regulate our government indefinitely.
Therefore, if reform is inevitable, why not now?
不幸的是，当宪法在当代政治中被讨论时，讨论往往会回到将该文件奉为世界上最伟大的成就之一的地步。典型的保守派评论员对撰写这份文件的奴隶主、偷税漏税的走私者近乎含泪表示崇敬，称他们为“开国元勋”。
强调一点，改革是一件好事。固守日益过时的适当治理观念则不是件好事。
好消息是，宪法重置几乎是铁定会发生的事。也许在我有生之年不会，但这是不可避免的。就像任何结构都不可能永远存在一样，认为宪法足以无限期地规范我们的政府是不合理的。
因此，如果改革是不可避免的，为什么现在不改革宪法呢？
To belabor a point, reform is a good thing. Clinging to increasingly dated notions of proper governance are not.
The good news is that a Constitutional reset is all but certain. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it is inevitable. Just like no structure can be expected to stand forever, it's implausible to suggest that the Constitution will be sufficient to regulate our government indefinitely.
Therefore, if reform is inevitable, why not now?
不幸的是，当宪法在当代政治中被讨论时，讨论往往会回到将该文件奉为世界上最伟大的成就之一的地步。典型的保守派评论员对撰写这份文件的奴隶主、偷税漏税的走私者近乎含泪表示崇敬，称他们为“开国元勋”。
强调一点，改革是一件好事。固守日益过时的适当治理观念则不是件好事。
好消息是，宪法重置几乎是铁定会发生的事。也许在我有生之年不会，但这是不可避免的。就像任何结构都不可能永远存在一样，认为宪法足以无限期地规范我们的政府是不合理的。
因此，如果改革是不可避免的，为什么现在不改革宪法呢？
Chris O'Leary
Is the U.S. Constitution due for an upxe?
Yes, but the time isn’t right.
America is too divided, too polarized right now to accomplish what would need to be accomplished in order to make real change to the Constitution.
The two ways to go about working on an upxe are the congressional method or the constitutional convention method. Both would theoretically result in one or more amendments to upxe the Constitution.
The way all 27 amendments to the constitution so far have been made is through the Congressional process.
Congress proposes an amendment, which must be approved with a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress. So you need 66 Senators, AND 288 members of the House of Representatives to agree on a proposed amendment.
Once that’s done, the national archivist sends it to the governor of each state who then sends it to their state legislatures. 3/4 of the state legislatures must vote to ratify the proposed amendment, in other words, 38 states have to ratify.
美国宪法应该更新吗？
是的，但是时间不对。
美国现在太分裂，太两极分化，无法完成对宪法进行真正修改所需要完成的任务。
进行更新的两种方法是通过国会程序或通过制宪会议程序。从理论上讲，这两种情况都会导致更新一项或多项修正案。
迄今为止，宪法的所有27项修正案都是通过国会程序进行的。
国会提出了一项修正案，该修正案必须在国会两院以2/3的多数票通过。因此，你需要66名参议员和288名众议院议员就拟议的修正案达成一致。
一旦完成，国家档案管理员就会将其发送给各州州长，州长再将其发送到各州立法机构。必须有3/4的州立法机构投票批准拟议的修正案，换句话说，必须有38个州批准才行。
Is the U.S. Constitution due for an upxe?
Yes, but the time isn’t right.
America is too divided, too polarized right now to accomplish what would need to be accomplished in order to make real change to the Constitution.
The two ways to go about working on an upxe are the congressional method or the constitutional convention method. Both would theoretically result in one or more amendments to upxe the Constitution.
The way all 27 amendments to the constitution so far have been made is through the Congressional process.
Congress proposes an amendment, which must be approved with a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress. So you need 66 Senators, AND 288 members of the House of Representatives to agree on a proposed amendment.
Once that’s done, the national archivist sends it to the governor of each state who then sends it to their state legislatures. 3/4 of the state legislatures must vote to ratify the proposed amendment, in other words, 38 states have to ratify.
美国宪法应该更新吗？
是的，但是时间不对。
美国现在太分裂，太两极分化，无法完成对宪法进行真正修改所需要完成的任务。
进行更新的两种方法是通过国会程序或通过制宪会议程序。从理论上讲，这两种情况都会导致更新一项或多项修正案。
迄今为止，宪法的所有27项修正案都是通过国会程序进行的。
国会提出了一项修正案，该修正案必须在国会两院以2/3的多数票通过。因此，你需要66名参议员和288名众议院议员就拟议的修正案达成一致。
一旦完成，国家档案管理员就会将其发送给各州州长，州长再将其发送到各州立法机构。必须有3/4的州立法机构投票批准拟议的修正案，换句话说，必须有38个州批准才行。
Now. Can you imagine that much agreement in Congress OR the states when it comes to something as game-changing as a constitutional amendment?
The other way to go about it is to call a Constitutional Convention. In order for that to happen, first, 34 states must petition Congress to call a Convention.
Any Amendment proposed at such a convention must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, again 38 states have to agree.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
现在，你能想象国会或各州在宪法修正案这样改变游戏规则的事情上达成如此多的一致吗？
另一种方法是召开制宪会议。为了实现这一点，首先，34个州必须请求国会召开会议。
在这样的大会上提出的任何修正案都必须得到3/4的州的批准，也就是必须得到38个州的同意才行。
在两院三分之二的议员认为必要时，国会应对本宪法提出修正案，或在三分之二的州立法机关的申请下，召集会议提出修正案，在任何一种情况下，经四分之三的州的立法机关或四分之三的州的公约批准后，根据国会提出的一种或另一种批准方式，作为本宪法的一部分，在所有意图和目的上都有效；但在1808年以前作出的任何修正案均不得以任何方式影响第一条第九节的第一条和第四条；任何一州，未经其同意，不得被剥夺其在参议院的平等选举权。
The other way to go about it is to call a Constitutional Convention. In order for that to happen, first, 34 states must petition Congress to call a Convention.
Any Amendment proposed at such a convention must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, again 38 states have to agree.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
现在，你能想象国会或各州在宪法修正案这样改变游戏规则的事情上达成如此多的一致吗？
另一种方法是召开制宪会议。为了实现这一点，首先，34个州必须请求国会召开会议。
在这样的大会上提出的任何修正案都必须得到3/4的州的批准，也就是必须得到38个州的同意才行。
在两院三分之二的议员认为必要时，国会应对本宪法提出修正案，或在三分之二的州立法机关的申请下，召集会议提出修正案，在任何一种情况下，经四分之三的州的立法机关或四分之三的州的公约批准后，根据国会提出的一种或另一种批准方式，作为本宪法的一部分，在所有意图和目的上都有效；但在1808年以前作出的任何修正案均不得以任何方式影响第一条第九节的第一条和第四条；任何一州，未经其同意，不得被剥夺其在参议院的平等选举权。
Right now, 30 State Legislatures are controlled by Republicans, 18 by Democrats.
So. Think about what you’re trying to accomplish with a Convention or with amendments proposed by Congress.
Never mind how split down the middle Congress is:
Think you can get 20 Republican Controlled states to jettison the Electoral College or reword the 2nd amendment?
Think you can get Eight Democratic States to agree to a balanced budget amendment or to clarify the 14th so that it can’t be interpreted to include a right to a private conversation between a woman and her doctor?
Yes, The Constitution needs to be looked at and upxed. The Founding fathers knew that would be the case, it’s why Article V is in it.
But in order to accomplish that, first, we have to work on our divisions.
目前，30个州议会由共和党控制，18个由民主党控制。
所以，想想你试图通过一项公约或国会提出的修正案来实现什么（目的）。
别管国会中间有多分裂：
你认为你能让20个共和党控制的州放弃选举团制度或修改第二修正案吗?
你认为你能让八个民主党州同意平衡预算修正案，或者澄清第14条，使其不能被解释为包括妇女和医生之间私人谈话的权利吗？
是的，宪法需要研究和更新。开国元勋们知道情况会是这样，这就是为什么会存在第五条的原因。
但为了实现这一目标，我们首先必须努力解决分歧。
So. Think about what you’re trying to accomplish with a Convention or with amendments proposed by Congress.
Never mind how split down the middle Congress is:
Think you can get 20 Republican Controlled states to jettison the Electoral College or reword the 2nd amendment?
Think you can get Eight Democratic States to agree to a balanced budget amendment or to clarify the 14th so that it can’t be interpreted to include a right to a private conversation between a woman and her doctor?
Yes, The Constitution needs to be looked at and upxed. The Founding fathers knew that would be the case, it’s why Article V is in it.
But in order to accomplish that, first, we have to work on our divisions.
目前，30个州议会由共和党控制，18个由民主党控制。
所以，想想你试图通过一项公约或国会提出的修正案来实现什么（目的）。
别管国会中间有多分裂：
你认为你能让20个共和党控制的州放弃选举团制度或修改第二修正案吗?
你认为你能让八个民主党州同意平衡预算修正案，或者澄清第14条，使其不能被解释为包括妇女和医生之间私人谈话的权利吗？
是的，宪法需要研究和更新。开国元勋们知道情况会是这样，这就是为什么会存在第五条的原因。
但为了实现这一目标，我们首先必须努力解决分歧。
William Weir
Should the American Constitution be changed?
Yes. That’s why the frxrs designed it to be changed. In fact, one of the first things they did after they signed it was change it with ten amendments. They were smart enough to know that what worked in 1788 might not work in 1888, 1988, or 2020. Unfortunately, some people revere it like it’s the Holy Bible and think it’s sacrilegious to change it for any reason, even when it’s failing to do some of the things it was designed to do, and is in fact making matters worse.
美国宪法应该修改吗?
是的。这就是为什么制宪者要改变它。事实上，他们签署后做的第一件事就是修改了十项修正案。他们足够聪明，知道在1788年奏效的东西，在1888年、1988年或2020年可能就行不通了。不幸的是，有些人把它奉为圣经，认为以任何理由改变它都是亵渎神圣的，即使它没有做到它设计的一些事情，实际上只会让事情变得更糟。
Should the American Constitution be changed?
Yes. That’s why the frxrs designed it to be changed. In fact, one of the first things they did after they signed it was change it with ten amendments. They were smart enough to know that what worked in 1788 might not work in 1888, 1988, or 2020. Unfortunately, some people revere it like it’s the Holy Bible and think it’s sacrilegious to change it for any reason, even when it’s failing to do some of the things it was designed to do, and is in fact making matters worse.
美国宪法应该修改吗?
是的。这就是为什么制宪者要改变它。事实上，他们签署后做的第一件事就是修改了十项修正案。他们足够聪明，知道在1788年奏效的东西，在1888年、1988年或2020年可能就行不通了。不幸的是，有些人把它奉为圣经，认为以任何理由改变它都是亵渎神圣的，即使它没有做到它设计的一些事情，实际上只会让事情变得更糟。
Chris Everett
It is often said that the United States federal government is challenged with significant gridlock. Do you think this will resolve itself on its own or do you think the constitution itself needs to be changed?
The gridlock is a feature, not a bug.
In case you've missed it, the people of the United States are very divided about many issues. Their representatives, for the most part, represent their constituents and vote they way the people want them too.
Our system was designed not as a mob-rule democracy, but where minority groups still had real, meaningful power in the government. The 'gridlock' is the excercise of that power.
人们常说，美国联邦政府面临陷入严重僵局的挑战。你认为这会自行解决吗？还是认为宪法本身需要修改？
僵局是一个特性，而不是一个BUG。
如果你错过了它，美国人民在许多问题上都非常分裂。他们的代表，在很大程度上，代表他们的选民，并按照人民的意愿投票。
我们的制度不是设计成暴民统治的民主制度，而是少数群体在政府中仍然拥有真正、有意义的权力。“僵局”就是行使这种权力必然会出现的问题。
It is often said that the United States federal government is challenged with significant gridlock. Do you think this will resolve itself on its own or do you think the constitution itself needs to be changed?
The gridlock is a feature, not a bug.
In case you've missed it, the people of the United States are very divided about many issues. Their representatives, for the most part, represent their constituents and vote they way the people want them too.
Our system was designed not as a mob-rule democracy, but where minority groups still had real, meaningful power in the government. The 'gridlock' is the excercise of that power.
人们常说，美国联邦政府面临陷入严重僵局的挑战。你认为这会自行解决吗？还是认为宪法本身需要修改？
僵局是一个特性，而不是一个BUG。
如果你错过了它，美国人民在许多问题上都非常分裂。他们的代表，在很大程度上，代表他们的选民，并按照人民的意愿投票。
我们的制度不是设计成暴民统治的民主制度，而是少数群体在政府中仍然拥有真正、有意义的权力。“僵局”就是行使这种权力必然会出现的问题。
Steve Hathway
This will not necessarily answer the question. But I think these ideas are relevant in framing answers to the question.
The great thing about the Constitution is that it is founded on timeless principles. It is the culmination of Enlightenment thought on political economy. Namely that individuals have a right to their life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution describes how to craft a government whose primary purpose is to protect those rights. It does this by limiting the power of government to interfere with a person’s decisions to run his/her own life.
It is short on specifics because it sets forth principles that are then to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. SCOTUS has the job of interpreting the principles in the Constitution given specific, present-day situations. It is idiotic to call for reform because “we know so much more than the they did back then” or “things are so much different today”. Your inability to apply concepts to particulars is not an indictment of the Constitution.
这并不一定能回答问题。但我认为这些观点与这个问题的答案是相关的。
宪法的伟大之处在于它建立在永恒的原则之上。它是启蒙政治经济学思想的巅峰之作。也就是说，即个人有生命、自由、财产和追求幸福的权利。宪法描述了如何建立一个以保护这些权利为主要目的的政府。它通过限制政府干预个人决定自己生活的权力来做到这一点。
它缺乏细节，因为它提出了由最高法院解释的原则。美国最高法院（SCOTUS）的职责是在特定的当前情况下解释宪法中的原则。因为“我们比他们当年知道的多得多”或“今天的情况大不相同”而呼吁改革是愚蠢的。你不能把概念应用到细节上，这不是对宪法的控诉。
This will not necessarily answer the question. But I think these ideas are relevant in framing answers to the question.
The great thing about the Constitution is that it is founded on timeless principles. It is the culmination of Enlightenment thought on political economy. Namely that individuals have a right to their life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution describes how to craft a government whose primary purpose is to protect those rights. It does this by limiting the power of government to interfere with a person’s decisions to run his/her own life.
It is short on specifics because it sets forth principles that are then to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. SCOTUS has the job of interpreting the principles in the Constitution given specific, present-day situations. It is idiotic to call for reform because “we know so much more than the they did back then” or “things are so much different today”. Your inability to apply concepts to particulars is not an indictment of the Constitution.
这并不一定能回答问题。但我认为这些观点与这个问题的答案是相关的。
宪法的伟大之处在于它建立在永恒的原则之上。它是启蒙政治经济学思想的巅峰之作。也就是说，即个人有生命、自由、财产和追求幸福的权利。宪法描述了如何建立一个以保护这些权利为主要目的的政府。它通过限制政府干预个人决定自己生活的权力来做到这一点。
它缺乏细节，因为它提出了由最高法院解释的原则。美国最高法院（SCOTUS）的职责是在特定的当前情况下解释宪法中的原则。因为“我们比他们当年知道的多得多”或“今天的情况大不相同”而呼吁改革是愚蠢的。你不能把概念应用到细节上，这不是对宪法的控诉。
Article V of the Constitution provides a method for amending the Constitution. So in that sense, there is a “living” portion of the Constitution. The Founders made it hard to pass amendments deliberately. If you read many of the answers to this question, you find populous gripes. You see calls for elimination of the electoral college, solving income inequality should be the purpose of government, etc. If you read history you quickly find this is exactly the kind of thing the Founders wanted to prevent. They understood that as soon as government became a source of charity, it necessarily HAD to violate rights of certain groups in favor of others.
The primary purpose of government is to protect an individual’s freedom to run his/her own life, not correct perceived injustices. The solutions people advocate often violate the rights of some to provide for others
《宪法》第五条规定了修改《宪法》的方法。因此，从这个意义上说，宪法中有“可实施修改”的角度。创始人故意使修正案难以通过。如果你阅读了关于这个问题的许多答案，你会发现大量的抱怨。你可以看到有人呼吁取消选举团制度，解决收入不平等应该是政府的目的，等等。如果你阅读了历史，你很快就会发现这正是创始人想要阻止的事情。他们明白，一旦政府成为慈善的来源，就必定会侵犯某些群体的权利，以利于其他群体。
政府的主要目的是保护个人管理自己生活的自由，而不是纠正人们认为的不公正方面的问题。人们提倡的解决方案往往侵犯了一些人的权力，往往在为另一些人提供权利。
The primary purpose of government is to protect an individual’s freedom to run his/her own life, not correct perceived injustices. The solutions people advocate often violate the rights of some to provide for others
《宪法》第五条规定了修改《宪法》的方法。因此，从这个意义上说，宪法中有“可实施修改”的角度。创始人故意使修正案难以通过。如果你阅读了关于这个问题的许多答案，你会发现大量的抱怨。你可以看到有人呼吁取消选举团制度，解决收入不平等应该是政府的目的，等等。如果你阅读了历史，你很快就会发现这正是创始人想要阻止的事情。他们明白，一旦政府成为慈善的来源，就必定会侵犯某些群体的权利，以利于其他群体。
政府的主要目的是保护个人管理自己生活的自由，而不是纠正人们认为的不公正方面的问题。人们提倡的解决方案往往侵犯了一些人的权力，往往在为另一些人提供权利。
很赞 3
收藏