美国宪法应该改革吗?（二）
正文翻译
Should the US Constitution be reformed?
美国宪法应该改革吗?
美国宪法应该改革吗?
评论翻译
Andrew Breslin
It is reformed, on a fairly regular basis. In fact today, November 20, marks the very first time this ever happened (or at least the date on which the process actually began . . . it's a pretty slow process). On November 20, 1789, New Jersey became the first state to ratify the first proposed Amendments to the Constitution. It took about two years for eleven other states to ratify 10 of these proposed Amendments, thus creating the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution has survived for so long as the frxwork for our governance precisely because it is designed to be modified and adapt to changing circumstances, but at the same time to make such modification difficult to accomplish without overwhelming support. The frxrs allowed for Amendments to the Constitution to be added to it, but these Amendments had to first be approved by two thirds majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and then go on to win approval in three fourths of all State legislatures.
I could suggest all sorts of specific amendments that I think would make this country run better, but that's not my point. the point is that the frxwork is already in place for amending the Constitution. It has happened about two dozen times over the course of the last two centuries.
I will add, though, that Amending the Constitution should not be the first choice to address any current crisis. It's a fairly radical procedure. The regular legislative process could do a lot . . . if we had an informed electorate.
它在相当定期的基础上进行了改革。事实上，今天，11月20日，标志着这种情况第一次发生(或者至少是这个过程实际开始的日期)。这是一个相当缓慢的过程)。1789年11月20日，新泽西州成为第一个批准宪法修正案的州。另外11个州花了大约两年的时间批准了其中的10项修正案，从而形成了《权利法案》。
《宪法》作为我们的治理框架得以长久存在，正是因为它是为了修改和适应不断变化的环境而设计的，但同时也使这种修改在没有压倒性支持的情况下难以实现。制宪者允许将宪法修正案添加到宪法中，但这些修正案必须首先获得众议院和参议院三分之二的多数票批准，然后才能获得四分之三州立法机构的批准。
我可以提出各种各样的具体修正案，我认为这会使这个国家运行得更好，但这不是我的重点。关键是修改宪法的框架已经到位。在过去的两个世纪里，这种情况发生了二十多次。
不过，我要补充一点，修改宪法不应该是解决当前任何危机的第一选择。这是一个相当激进的程序。正常的立法程序可以做很多事情，问题在于我们的选民是否知情。
It is reformed, on a fairly regular basis. In fact today, November 20, marks the very first time this ever happened (or at least the date on which the process actually began . . . it's a pretty slow process). On November 20, 1789, New Jersey became the first state to ratify the first proposed Amendments to the Constitution. It took about two years for eleven other states to ratify 10 of these proposed Amendments, thus creating the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution has survived for so long as the frxwork for our governance precisely because it is designed to be modified and adapt to changing circumstances, but at the same time to make such modification difficult to accomplish without overwhelming support. The frxrs allowed for Amendments to the Constitution to be added to it, but these Amendments had to first be approved by two thirds majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and then go on to win approval in three fourths of all State legislatures.
I could suggest all sorts of specific amendments that I think would make this country run better, but that's not my point. the point is that the frxwork is already in place for amending the Constitution. It has happened about two dozen times over the course of the last two centuries.
I will add, though, that Amending the Constitution should not be the first choice to address any current crisis. It's a fairly radical procedure. The regular legislative process could do a lot . . . if we had an informed electorate.
它在相当定期的基础上进行了改革。事实上，今天，11月20日，标志着这种情况第一次发生(或者至少是这个过程实际开始的日期)。这是一个相当缓慢的过程)。1789年11月20日，新泽西州成为第一个批准宪法修正案的州。另外11个州花了大约两年的时间批准了其中的10项修正案，从而形成了《权利法案》。
《宪法》作为我们的治理框架得以长久存在，正是因为它是为了修改和适应不断变化的环境而设计的，但同时也使这种修改在没有压倒性支持的情况下难以实现。制宪者允许将宪法修正案添加到宪法中，但这些修正案必须首先获得众议院和参议院三分之二的多数票批准，然后才能获得四分之三州立法机构的批准。
我可以提出各种各样的具体修正案，我认为这会使这个国家运行得更好，但这不是我的重点。关键是修改宪法的框架已经到位。在过去的两个世纪里，这种情况发生了二十多次。
不过，我要补充一点，修改宪法不应该是解决当前任何危机的第一选择。这是一个相当激进的程序。正常的立法程序可以做很多事情，问题在于我们的选民是否知情。
Charlie Fortin
Should the US "modernize" the Constitution?
No
Modernizing would be the euphemism for rewriting the U.S. Constitution with positive rights.
Mr Obama put it this way.
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
With recent historical failures of Greece, Venezuela, Cuba and Russia, and the turning away of China, we have real world examples of the jeopardy America would be in if we made this change.
Modernizing is a deception.
美国应该让宪法“现代化”吗？
不
现代化是用正权利重写美国宪法的委婉说法。
奥巴马是这样说的。
但是，最高法院从未涉足财富再分配问题，以及社会中的政治和经济正义等更基本的问题。在这种程度上，尽管我认为人们试图描述沃伦法院的激进性，但它并没有那么激进。它并没有摆脱开国元勋们在宪法中设置的基本约束，至少在解释宪法时是这样的，沃伦法院也以同样的方式解释宪法，一般来说，宪法是一个消极自由的宪章。说了各州和联邦政府不能随意修改，但没有说明联邦政府或州政府必须代表你去做什么。
鉴于希腊、委内瑞拉、古巴和俄罗斯最近的历史失败，以及中国的拒绝，我们有现实世界的例子，说明如果我们做出这种改变，美国将面临什么样的危险。
现代化是一种欺骗。
Should the US "modernize" the Constitution?
No
Modernizing would be the euphemism for rewriting the U.S. Constitution with positive rights.
Mr Obama put it this way.
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
With recent historical failures of Greece, Venezuela, Cuba and Russia, and the turning away of China, we have real world examples of the jeopardy America would be in if we made this change.
Modernizing is a deception.
美国应该让宪法“现代化”吗？
不
现代化是用正权利重写美国宪法的委婉说法。
奥巴马是这样说的。
但是，最高法院从未涉足财富再分配问题，以及社会中的政治和经济正义等更基本的问题。在这种程度上，尽管我认为人们试图描述沃伦法院的激进性，但它并没有那么激进。它并没有摆脱开国元勋们在宪法中设置的基本约束，至少在解释宪法时是这样的，沃伦法院也以同样的方式解释宪法，一般来说，宪法是一个消极自由的宪章。说了各州和联邦政府不能随意修改，但没有说明联邦政府或州政府必须代表你去做什么。
鉴于希腊、委内瑞拉、古巴和俄罗斯最近的历史失败，以及中国的拒绝，我们有现实世界的例子，说明如果我们做出这种改变，美国将面临什么样的危险。
现代化是一种欺骗。
Scott M. Stolz
Is the U.S. Constitution outdated?
The concepts in it are not outdated. It was designed to limit government’s power and to put mechanisms in place to prevent abuse of power. The bigger problem we have is not that the Constitution is outdated, but rather the government is sextively reinterpreting the Constitution to give itself more power, thereby eroding the safe guards the Founding Fathers attempted to put in place.
A lot of the things that are inconvenient in the Constitution, like checks and balances, dual jurisdiction of the states and federal government, the electoral college and the Bill of Rights were put there for a reason. Ignoring such provisions can lead to a consolidation of power, which is great if you are the ones who are in power, and not so great for everyone else.
And the Constitution has actually been changed twenty-seven (27) times through the amendment process. So it has changed with the times, and will continue to do so. The Constitution can change and adapt with the times through the amendment process.
The important thing is to not dismantle the checks and balances in the Constitution. Yet, many people who do not understand the purpose of certain provisions unintentionally propose to do just that.
Any streamlining will result in tyranny by the elite, or tyranny by the majority. Our government was designed to be decentralized and slow for a reason. We may not always like that, but it is what protects us from abuse of power.
If nothing else, we need more enforcement of the Constitution, rather than replacing it with something else.
美国宪法过时了吗？
其中的概念并不过时。它旨在限制政府的权力，并建立防止滥用权力的机制。我们面临的更大问题不是宪法已经过时，而是政府有选择地重新解释宪法，赋予自己更多的权力，从而侵蚀开国元勋们试图建立的安全屏障。
宪法中许多不便之处，如制衡、州和联邦政府的双重管辖权、选举团和《权利法案》都是有原因的。忽视这些条款可能会导致权力的巩固，如果你是掌权者，这很好，但对其他人来说就不那么好了。
事实上，宪法在修正过程中已经修改了二十七（27）次。因此，它已经随着时代的变化而变化，并将继续被修改。宪法可以通过修宪来改变和适应时代。
重要的是不要破坏宪法中的制衡机制。然而，很多不明白某些条文目的的人，却无意间提出要这样做。
任何精简都会导致精英的暴政，或者大多数人的暴政。我们的政府被设计成权力下放和行动迟缓是有原因的。我们可能并不总是喜欢这样，但这正是保护我们免受权力滥用的原因。
如果没有别的，我们需要更多地执行宪法，而不是用其他东西来取代它。
Is the U.S. Constitution outdated?
The concepts in it are not outdated. It was designed to limit government’s power and to put mechanisms in place to prevent abuse of power. The bigger problem we have is not that the Constitution is outdated, but rather the government is sextively reinterpreting the Constitution to give itself more power, thereby eroding the safe guards the Founding Fathers attempted to put in place.
A lot of the things that are inconvenient in the Constitution, like checks and balances, dual jurisdiction of the states and federal government, the electoral college and the Bill of Rights were put there for a reason. Ignoring such provisions can lead to a consolidation of power, which is great if you are the ones who are in power, and not so great for everyone else.
And the Constitution has actually been changed twenty-seven (27) times through the amendment process. So it has changed with the times, and will continue to do so. The Constitution can change and adapt with the times through the amendment process.
The important thing is to not dismantle the checks and balances in the Constitution. Yet, many people who do not understand the purpose of certain provisions unintentionally propose to do just that.
Any streamlining will result in tyranny by the elite, or tyranny by the majority. Our government was designed to be decentralized and slow for a reason. We may not always like that, but it is what protects us from abuse of power.
If nothing else, we need more enforcement of the Constitution, rather than replacing it with something else.
美国宪法过时了吗？
其中的概念并不过时。它旨在限制政府的权力，并建立防止滥用权力的机制。我们面临的更大问题不是宪法已经过时，而是政府有选择地重新解释宪法，赋予自己更多的权力，从而侵蚀开国元勋们试图建立的安全屏障。
宪法中许多不便之处，如制衡、州和联邦政府的双重管辖权、选举团和《权利法案》都是有原因的。忽视这些条款可能会导致权力的巩固，如果你是掌权者，这很好，但对其他人来说就不那么好了。
事实上，宪法在修正过程中已经修改了二十七（27）次。因此，它已经随着时代的变化而变化，并将继续被修改。宪法可以通过修宪来改变和适应时代。
重要的是不要破坏宪法中的制衡机制。然而，很多不明白某些条文目的的人，却无意间提出要这样做。
任何精简都会导致精英的暴政，或者大多数人的暴政。我们的政府被设计成权力下放和行动迟缓是有原因的。我们可能并不总是喜欢这样，但这正是保护我们免受权力滥用的原因。
如果没有别的，我们需要更多地执行宪法，而不是用其他东西来取代它。
Gary Porter
Suffice it to say now that the Constitution itself outlines the process for reform in Article V. That there have been only 27 official "reforms" in over 200 years shows that the proposed "reform" must have wide-spread support, both in Congress and in the States (this doesn't count the ill-fated original 13th Amendment "Titles of Nobility" which appears to have been ratified and then mysteriously removed). Unfortunately, the Constitution has been unofficially “reformed” countless times through Supreme Court opinion.
One reason there is mounting pressure to "bring the Constitution up to date" is that people have not been taught the underlying principles that informed the original document. These principles must be recaptured and taught in our schools. They are eternally valid and without an understanding of them, much of the document cannot be properly understood.
Another reason for the mounting pressure for "reform" is the realization that the federal government has truly become the "Leviathan" of Thomas Hobbes fame and has been allowed to burst the limits the original Constitution placed on it, thanks largely to liberal/progressive interpretations by the Court. Now the feds intrude into areas of our lives that would never have been countenanced by the frxrs.
Putting the federal government back into its "enumerated powers" box will be difficult, but not impossible.
现在只需说，宪法本身在第五条中概述了修正进程。200多年来，正式条文只有27次“修正”，这表明拟议的“修正”必须得到广泛支持，无论是在国会还是在各州（这还不包括命运多舛的最初第13修正案“贵族头衔”，该修正案似乎已经被批准，然后神秘地被删除）。不幸的是，宪法已经通过最高法院的意见被非正式地“修正”了无数次。
要求“更新宪法”的压力越来越大的一个原因是，人们没有被教导原始文件的基本原则。这些原则必须在我们的学校里重新掌握和传授。它们永远有效，如果不了解它们，文件的大部分内容就无法得到正确解读。
“修正”压力越来越大的另一个原因是，人们意识到联邦政府已经真正成为托马斯·霍布斯（Thomas Hobbes）那著名的“海怪”，并被允许突破原宪法对其的限制，这在很大程度上要归功于法院的自由/进步解释。现在联邦政府侵入了我们生活的各个领域这是制宪者绝不会允许的。
让联邦政府回归其“被列举的权力”将是困难的，但并非不可能。
Suffice it to say now that the Constitution itself outlines the process for reform in Article V. That there have been only 27 official "reforms" in over 200 years shows that the proposed "reform" must have wide-spread support, both in Congress and in the States (this doesn't count the ill-fated original 13th Amendment "Titles of Nobility" which appears to have been ratified and then mysteriously removed). Unfortunately, the Constitution has been unofficially “reformed” countless times through Supreme Court opinion.
One reason there is mounting pressure to "bring the Constitution up to date" is that people have not been taught the underlying principles that informed the original document. These principles must be recaptured and taught in our schools. They are eternally valid and without an understanding of them, much of the document cannot be properly understood.
Another reason for the mounting pressure for "reform" is the realization that the federal government has truly become the "Leviathan" of Thomas Hobbes fame and has been allowed to burst the limits the original Constitution placed on it, thanks largely to liberal/progressive interpretations by the Court. Now the feds intrude into areas of our lives that would never have been countenanced by the frxrs.
Putting the federal government back into its "enumerated powers" box will be difficult, but not impossible.
现在只需说，宪法本身在第五条中概述了修正进程。200多年来，正式条文只有27次“修正”，这表明拟议的“修正”必须得到广泛支持，无论是在国会还是在各州（这还不包括命运多舛的最初第13修正案“贵族头衔”，该修正案似乎已经被批准，然后神秘地被删除）。不幸的是，宪法已经通过最高法院的意见被非正式地“修正”了无数次。
要求“更新宪法”的压力越来越大的一个原因是，人们没有被教导原始文件的基本原则。这些原则必须在我们的学校里重新掌握和传授。它们永远有效，如果不了解它们，文件的大部分内容就无法得到正确解读。
“修正”压力越来越大的另一个原因是，人们意识到联邦政府已经真正成为托马斯·霍布斯（Thomas Hobbes）那著名的“海怪”，并被允许突破原宪法对其的限制，这在很大程度上要归功于法院的自由/进步解释。现在联邦政府侵入了我们生活的各个领域这是制宪者绝不会允许的。
让联邦政府回归其“被列举的权力”将是困难的，但并非不可能。
Ernest W. Adams
Why has the US never changed its Constitution?
The US Constitution was deliberately designed to be timeless by being only a blueprint for government and not an instrument of policy. Even the fundamental rights that it guarantees are in amendments rather than in the main body. Because it wasn't written in response to specific circumstances, it doesn't need to change dramatically when circumstances change.
However, this isn't to say that it doesn't contain errors. It should have been explicit from the beginning that it applies to the whole nation and not just to the federal government. That wasn't decided until the 1930s. It also should have banned the filibuster and gerrymandering, as both of these are attacks on democracy, irrespective of circumstances.
为什么美国从未修改过宪法？
美国宪法被刻意设计成永恒的，因为它只是政府的蓝图，而不是政策的工具。即使是它所保障的基本权利也在修正案中，而不是在主体中。因为它不是针对特定情况而写的，所以它不需要随着情况的变化而急剧变化。
然而，这并不是说它不包含错误。它从一开始就应该明确地适用于整个国家，而不仅仅是联邦政府。直到20世纪30年代才做出决定，它还应该禁止阻挠议事和不公正的选区划分，因为无论在什么情况下，这两种行为都是在攻击民主。
Why has the US never changed its Constitution?
The US Constitution was deliberately designed to be timeless by being only a blueprint for government and not an instrument of policy. Even the fundamental rights that it guarantees are in amendments rather than in the main body. Because it wasn't written in response to specific circumstances, it doesn't need to change dramatically when circumstances change.
However, this isn't to say that it doesn't contain errors. It should have been explicit from the beginning that it applies to the whole nation and not just to the federal government. That wasn't decided until the 1930s. It also should have banned the filibuster and gerrymandering, as both of these are attacks on democracy, irrespective of circumstances.
为什么美国从未修改过宪法？
美国宪法被刻意设计成永恒的，因为它只是政府的蓝图，而不是政策的工具。即使是它所保障的基本权利也在修正案中，而不是在主体中。因为它不是针对特定情况而写的，所以它不需要随着情况的变化而急剧变化。
然而，这并不是说它不包含错误。它从一开始就应该明确地适用于整个国家，而不仅仅是联邦政府。直到20世纪30年代才做出决定，它还应该禁止阻挠议事和不公正的选区划分，因为无论在什么情况下，这两种行为都是在攻击民主。
Rupert Baines
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 Constitution is designed to be slow: so that aspect is deliberate. (Especially the Senate)
The worrying aspect is the Constitution assumed politicians would be reasonable men, who would decide on issues, negotiate and reach the best answer.
That is not the same as today, with strong factional party blocks, big money PACs and gerrymandered constiuencies.
As a result, there is less && less compromise or cross-party voting, far more of "forget the center - I just need 50%+1" and appeal to the base.
The gerrymandering and guaranteed majorities (and hence guarnteed disenfranchised minorities) is particularly egregious.
人们常说，美国联邦政府严重的“僵化”。你认为这会自行解决吗？还是认为宪法本身需要修改？
《宪法》的设计是缓慢的：所以这方面是经过深思熟虑的。（尤其是参议院）
令人担忧的是，宪法假定政治家都是通情达理的人，他们会就问题做出决定，进行谈判并达成最佳答案。
这与今天不同，有强大的派系政党集团、掌握大笔资金的政治行动委员会和选区划分不公的宪法。
因此，妥协和跨党派投票越来越少，更多的是“忘记中间派——我只需要50%+1”，并吸引基层选民。
不公正的选区划分和多数人得到保障（因此少数人丧失公民权的现状也得到保障）尤其令人震惊。
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 Constitution is designed to be slow: so that aspect is deliberate. (Especially the Senate)
The worrying aspect is the Constitution assumed politicians would be reasonable men, who would decide on issues, negotiate and reach the best answer.
That is not the same as today, with strong factional party blocks, big money PACs and gerrymandered constiuencies.
As a result, there is less && less compromise or cross-party voting, far more of "forget the center - I just need 50%+1" and appeal to the base.
The gerrymandering and guaranteed majorities (and hence guarnteed disenfranchised minorities) is particularly egregious.
人们常说，美国联邦政府严重的“僵化”。你认为这会自行解决吗？还是认为宪法本身需要修改？
《宪法》的设计是缓慢的：所以这方面是经过深思熟虑的。（尤其是参议院）
令人担忧的是，宪法假定政治家都是通情达理的人，他们会就问题做出决定，进行谈判并达成最佳答案。
这与今天不同，有强大的派系政党集团、掌握大笔资金的政治行动委员会和选区划分不公的宪法。
因此，妥协和跨党派投票越来越少，更多的是“忘记中间派——我只需要50%+1”，并吸引基层选民。
不公正的选区划分和多数人得到保障（因此少数人丧失公民权的现状也得到保障）尤其令人震惊。
WE HAVE written a lot, recently, about the insidious insanity inside American democracy otherwise known as gerrymandering.
Worse, politically controlled redistricting helps drive the hyper-partisanship of politics. In turbulent political times, when large swings in the vote are possible, party bosses feel driven to construct safer seats than they once used to need. With fewer seats changing hands on election day, this tends to shift the focus of politics away from the general election itself, and on to the primaries in which the parties sext their candidates. The turnout in primaries is tiny, typically only between 10% and 20% of voters, and tends to be disproportionately composed of activists. So those sexted tend to be politically slanted to the left or the right extremes.
This, in turn, drives the gridlock that affects Washington.
The most important change would not be constitional, but making sure that Representatives were actually representative, by having an independent boundary commission with teeth that set House consituencies in ways that made them both "sensibl" and competively.
That does not work everywhere (there are always safe seats) but it would be an easy change that would have a major impact, would better serve democracy (remove a lot of those permanent minorities) and would reward consensus, negotiation and results.
最近，我们已经写了很多关于美国民主内部阴险的疯狂，或者被称为不公正划分选区。
更糟糕的是，政治控制的选区重划有助于推动政治上的极端党派之争。在动荡的政治时代，当选票可能出现大幅波动时，政党领导人感到有必要建造比过去更安全的席位。随着选举日席位的减少，这往往会将政治焦点从大选本身转移到政党选择候选人的初选上。初选的投票率很少，通常只占选民的10%到20%，而且往往不成比例地由积极分子组成。因此，那些被选中的人往往在政治上倾向于左翼或右翼极端。
这反过来又造成了影响联邦政府的“僵化”。
最重要的改变不是宪法上的，而是通过设立一个独立的边界委员会，确保众议院的一致性既“明智”又有竞争力，从而确保众议员真正具有代表性。
这并不适用于所有地方(总有安全席位)，但这将是很容易被认可的修正，而且将产生重大影响，会更好地服务于民主(让少数人（丧失公民权）的现状永久消失)，并理所当然地获得共识、协商谈判和产生结果。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Worse, politically controlled redistricting helps drive the hyper-partisanship of politics. In turbulent political times, when large swings in the vote are possible, party bosses feel driven to construct safer seats than they once used to need. With fewer seats changing hands on election day, this tends to shift the focus of politics away from the general election itself, and on to the primaries in which the parties sext their candidates. The turnout in primaries is tiny, typically only between 10% and 20% of voters, and tends to be disproportionately composed of activists. So those sexted tend to be politically slanted to the left or the right extremes.
This, in turn, drives the gridlock that affects Washington.
The most important change would not be constitional, but making sure that Representatives were actually representative, by having an independent boundary commission with teeth that set House consituencies in ways that made them both "sensibl" and competively.
That does not work everywhere (there are always safe seats) but it would be an easy change that would have a major impact, would better serve democracy (remove a lot of those permanent minorities) and would reward consensus, negotiation and results.
最近，我们已经写了很多关于美国民主内部阴险的疯狂，或者被称为不公正划分选区。
更糟糕的是，政治控制的选区重划有助于推动政治上的极端党派之争。在动荡的政治时代，当选票可能出现大幅波动时，政党领导人感到有必要建造比过去更安全的席位。随着选举日席位的减少，这往往会将政治焦点从大选本身转移到政党选择候选人的初选上。初选的投票率很少，通常只占选民的10%到20%，而且往往不成比例地由积极分子组成。因此，那些被选中的人往往在政治上倾向于左翼或右翼极端。
这反过来又造成了影响联邦政府的“僵化”。
最重要的改变不是宪法上的，而是通过设立一个独立的边界委员会，确保众议院的一致性既“明智”又有竞争力，从而确保众议员真正具有代表性。
这并不适用于所有地方(总有安全席位)，但这将是很容易被认可的修正，而且将产生重大影响，会更好地服务于民主(让少数人（丧失公民权）的现状永久消失)，并理所当然地获得共识、协商谈判和产生结果。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Elion Lima
Will the Constitution of the United States ever be revised?
The US Constitution already has been revised 27 times.
The Article V of the United States Constitution states:
“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.”
Actually, the amendments are the main way which Constitution is revised, it's very natural that a Constitution be revised and get added an amendment, in fact, an Amendment is a kind of upgrade that Constitution receives to attend social demands of a society that is constantly changing. America is not more the same country that it was when Constitution was written: The Bill of Rights was passed; Slavery was abolished; Black people and women gained the right to vote; Senators started to be elected by the popular vote, not by the State Legislature anymore; the current Federal income tax was introduced; the Presidential inauguration was changed for the January 20th instead the old inauguration day: March 4th; and the President's term started to have a two term-limit (no person can be reelected US President more than one time anymore, this Amendment was passed to prevent that someone tries FDR's strategy of a 4 times term, but it's also valid remember that FDR broke up the 2-term tradition established by George Washington).
美国宪法会被修改吗？
美国宪法已经修订了27次。
美国宪法第五条规定：
“国会应在两院各2/3议员认为必要时，提出本宪法的修正案，或根据全国2/3州议会的请求召开公议提出修正案。以上任何一种情况下提出的修正案，经全国的州议会或3/4州的制宪会议批准，即成为本宪法的一部分而发生实际效力；采用哪种批准方式可由国会提出。但在1808年前所制定的修正案不得以任何形式影响本宪法第一条第九款之第一、第四两项；任何一州，未经其同意，不得被剥夺它在参议院中的平等投票权。”
实际上，修正案是修改宪法的主要方式，修改宪法并增加修正案是很自然的事，事实上，修正案就是宪法为满足不断变化的社会的社会需求而接受的一种升级。美国不再是宪法制定时的那个国家：《权利法案》获得通过；奴隶制被废除；黑人和妇女获得了选举权；参议员开始由普选产生，不再由州议会选举；引入了现行的联邦所得税；总统就职典礼改为1月20日，而不是原来的就职典礼日期：3月4日;总统的任期开始有两届限制(没有人可以连任一次以上，通过这项修正案是为了防止有人尝试罗斯福的四届任期策略，但记住，罗斯福打破了乔治·华盛顿确立的两届任期传统，这也是有效的）。
Will the Constitution of the United States ever be revised?
The US Constitution already has been revised 27 times.
The Article V of the United States Constitution states:
“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.”
Actually, the amendments are the main way which Constitution is revised, it's very natural that a Constitution be revised and get added an amendment, in fact, an Amendment is a kind of upgrade that Constitution receives to attend social demands of a society that is constantly changing. America is not more the same country that it was when Constitution was written: The Bill of Rights was passed; Slavery was abolished; Black people and women gained the right to vote; Senators started to be elected by the popular vote, not by the State Legislature anymore; the current Federal income tax was introduced; the Presidential inauguration was changed for the January 20th instead the old inauguration day: March 4th; and the President's term started to have a two term-limit (no person can be reelected US President more than one time anymore, this Amendment was passed to prevent that someone tries FDR's strategy of a 4 times term, but it's also valid remember that FDR broke up the 2-term tradition established by George Washington).
美国宪法会被修改吗？
美国宪法已经修订了27次。
美国宪法第五条规定：
“国会应在两院各2/3议员认为必要时，提出本宪法的修正案，或根据全国2/3州议会的请求召开公议提出修正案。以上任何一种情况下提出的修正案，经全国的州议会或3/4州的制宪会议批准，即成为本宪法的一部分而发生实际效力；采用哪种批准方式可由国会提出。但在1808年前所制定的修正案不得以任何形式影响本宪法第一条第九款之第一、第四两项；任何一州，未经其同意，不得被剥夺它在参议院中的平等投票权。”
实际上，修正案是修改宪法的主要方式，修改宪法并增加修正案是很自然的事，事实上，修正案就是宪法为满足不断变化的社会的社会需求而接受的一种升级。美国不再是宪法制定时的那个国家：《权利法案》获得通过；奴隶制被废除；黑人和妇女获得了选举权；参议员开始由普选产生，不再由州议会选举；引入了现行的联邦所得税；总统就职典礼改为1月20日，而不是原来的就职典礼日期：3月4日;总统的任期开始有两届限制(没有人可以连任一次以上，通过这项修正案是为了防止有人尝试罗斯福的四届任期策略，但记住，罗斯福打破了乔治·华盛顿确立的两届任期传统，这也是有效的）。
So, yes it's possible that US Constitution can be revised and get a new amendment, but for that an Amendment be passed it must be approved by 3/4 of the states legislatures, currently the number of states for approving an amendment is 38 (3/4 of 50, or 75%), Also America is a very diverse nation with very different States, the same amendment that can be approved by a state can be easily rejected by another state (For example: a wannabe Amendment that could repeal the Second Amendment can be easily passed by a progressive liberal state like California, Hawaii or New York, but the same amendment can be rejected and even lynched by a conservative state like Wyoming, Tennessee or Texas and by a lot of swing states like Pennsylvania, Florida or Ohio and even by moderate progressive states like Michigan, Colorado and Wisconsin, probably a wannabe Amendment that could repeal Second amendment will never be passed and cause a lot of polemics).
In short, yes the United States Constitution can be revised, but the revision process of the US Constitution is an essentially political process and can pass for a lot of polemics and discussion in Congress and in American society and also take a very, very long time to be passed, the 27th amendment took almost 200 years to get passed! The last Time that the US Constitution was revised (got an Amendment) was in 1992 when the 27th Amendment was passed. In fact, America hadn't revise its Constitution for almost 30 years.
所以，是的，美国宪法有可能被修改并获得新的修正案，但要想通过修正案，它必须得到3/4的州立法机构的批准，目前批准修正案的州数为38个（50个州中的3/4，即75%），一个州可以批准的同一修正案很容易被另一个州否决（例如：想要废除第二修正案的修正案可以很容易地被加利福尼亚州、夏威夷州或纽约州等进步自由主义州通过，但同样的修正案也可以被怀俄明州、田纳西州或得克萨斯州等保守派州拒绝，甚至被宾夕法尼亚州、佛罗里达州或俄亥俄州这样的摇摆州甚至是密歇根州、科罗拉多州和威斯康星州这样的温和进步州拒绝，甚至被诽谤，可能一项想要废除第二修正案的修正案永远不会被通过，并且会引起很多争论）。
简言之，是的，美国宪法可以修改，但美国宪法的修改过程本质上是一个政治过程，可以在国会和美国社会引起很多争论和讨论，也需要非常非常长的时间才能通过，第27条修正案花了近200年才通过！美国宪法最后一次修改(获得修正案)是在1992年，当时通过了第27条修正案。事实上，美国已经有将近30年没有修改宪法了。
In short, yes the United States Constitution can be revised, but the revision process of the US Constitution is an essentially political process and can pass for a lot of polemics and discussion in Congress and in American society and also take a very, very long time to be passed, the 27th amendment took almost 200 years to get passed! The last Time that the US Constitution was revised (got an Amendment) was in 1992 when the 27th Amendment was passed. In fact, America hadn't revise its Constitution for almost 30 years.
所以，是的，美国宪法有可能被修改并获得新的修正案，但要想通过修正案，它必须得到3/4的州立法机构的批准，目前批准修正案的州数为38个（50个州中的3/4，即75%），一个州可以批准的同一修正案很容易被另一个州否决（例如：想要废除第二修正案的修正案可以很容易地被加利福尼亚州、夏威夷州或纽约州等进步自由主义州通过，但同样的修正案也可以被怀俄明州、田纳西州或得克萨斯州等保守派州拒绝，甚至被宾夕法尼亚州、佛罗里达州或俄亥俄州这样的摇摆州甚至是密歇根州、科罗拉多州和威斯康星州这样的温和进步州拒绝，甚至被诽谤，可能一项想要废除第二修正案的修正案永远不会被通过，并且会引起很多争论）。
简言之，是的，美国宪法可以修改，但美国宪法的修改过程本质上是一个政治过程，可以在国会和美国社会引起很多争论和讨论，也需要非常非常长的时间才能通过，第27条修正案花了近200年才通过！美国宪法最后一次修改(获得修正案)是在1992年，当时通过了第27条修正案。事实上，美国已经有将近30年没有修改宪法了。
Brian Mattes
Can the U.S. Constitution be changed?
Yes, and it has been. 27 times (out of 33 proposals).
But the process is, by design, is difficult. Put simply, it must be proposed by two-thirds of both the House and Senate.
Then it must be ratified by three-quarters of the states — currently 38.
It’s a very long and drawn out process that can take years.
美国宪法可以修改吗?
是的，确实可以被修改，被修改27次(33次提案)。
但是，这个过程本来就很困难。简而言之，它必须由参众两院三分之二的议员提出。
然后，它必须得到四分之三的州(目前是38个)的批准。
这是一个非常漫长的过程，可能需要数年时间。
Can the U.S. Constitution be changed?
Yes, and it has been. 27 times (out of 33 proposals).
But the process is, by design, is difficult. Put simply, it must be proposed by two-thirds of both the House and Senate.
Then it must be ratified by three-quarters of the states — currently 38.
It’s a very long and drawn out process that can take years.
美国宪法可以修改吗?
是的，确实可以被修改，被修改27次(33次提案)。
但是，这个过程本来就很困难。简而言之，它必须由参众两院三分之二的议员提出。
然后，它必须得到四分之三的州(目前是38个)的批准。
这是一个非常漫长的过程，可能需要数年时间。
很赞 1
收藏