尊敬的用戶您好，這是來自FT中文網的溫馨提示：如您對更多FT中文網的內容感興趣，請在蘋果應用商店或谷歌應用市場搜尋「FT中文網」，下載FT中文網的官方應用。
Just a few weeks ago, a Manhattan jury found former president Donald Trump guilty of 34 felony counts. Its decision affirmed an idea that is the bedrock of American democracy: no one, not even a former president, is above the law. Monday’s Supreme Court decision in Trump vs United States seems to undercut that principle.
就在幾周前，曼哈頓的一個陪審團裁定前總統唐納•川普(Donald Trump)犯有34項重罪。其決定肯定了作爲美國民主基石的一個理念：任何人，包括前總統，都不能凌駕於法律之上。而週一最高法院對川普訴美國案的裁決似乎削弱了這一原則。
In a 6-3 decision regarding Trump’s claims of immunity over allegations that he sought to overturn the 2020 election result, the court radically expanded the notion of presidential immunity. It argued that a president may not be criminally prosecuted for exercising “core constitutional” duties, such as commanding the military, and has “presumptive immunity” for “official” acts.
最高法院以6票贊成、3票反對的結果，就川普試圖推翻2020年大選結果的指控提出豁免要求，從根本上擴大了總統豁免的概念。最高法院認爲，總統可能不會因行使「核心憲法」職責（例如指揮軍隊）而受到刑事起訴，並且對「公職」行爲具有「推定豁免權」。
The majority opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, suggests “official” could apply to anything a president does with the agencies under their jurisdiction. A president, it states, has no immunity for “unofficial” acts.
由首席大法官約翰•羅伯茲(John Roberts)執筆的多數意見認爲，「公職」一詞可以適用於總統對其管轄範圍內的機構所做的任何事情。該意見指出，總統對「非公職」行爲沒有豁免權。
Lower courts will now have to draw the boundaries between what were official and unofficial acts. The Supreme Court ruling almost certainly pushes any trial over the election interference case beyond the November election. Voters are then deprived of knowing the outcome, and Trump could throw the case out if re-elected. The court has also forever altered the US system — in a way that not only a returning Trump but other future presidents could take advantage of.
下級法院現在必須在公職和非公職行爲之間劃清界限。最高法院的裁決幾乎肯定會將任何有關選舉干預案的審判推遲到11月的選舉之後。選民屆時將無法知曉結果，而川普如果再次當選，也可能將此案撤訴。最高法院也永遠地改變了美國的制度——不僅是迴歸的川普，未來的其他總統也可以利用這種方式。
In another era, this decision might be seen as less a dangerous harbinger, and more a subject for high-flown debates. Ever since the 1982 Nixon vs Fitzgerald case, the court has been clear that a president is immune from civil liability for actions taken in office. The court has now extended that principle, arguing that an “energetic, independent” executive should not be deterred from taking necessary action by concerns over potential criminal prosecution after leaving office.
在另一個時代，這一決定可能不會被視爲一個危險的預兆，而更多地會被視爲一個激烈辯論的主題。自1982年尼克松訴菲茨傑拉德(Nixon vs Fitzgerald)案以來，法院一直明確表示，總統對在任期間採取的行動免於承擔民事責任。如今，法院擴大了這一原則，認爲「精力充沛、獨立」的行政官員不應因擔心離任後可能受到刑事起訴而不敢採取必要行動。
Criminal conduct seemed unlikely for most past presidents, who, despite their failings, generally sought to occupy the “place of moral leadership” that Franklin Delano Roosevelt argued is the core of the role. But we have now observed the extent to which an occupant of the White House can erode democratic norms. Trump’s first term, despite some limited economic successes, was characterised by a disregard for the rule of law and the electoral system, as evidenced by two impeachment trials and the sundry criminal cases against him and his former staff.
對於大多數前總統來說，犯罪行爲似乎不太可能發生，因爲他們儘管有過失，但一般都試圖佔據「道德領導的位置」，富蘭克林•德拉諾•羅斯福(Franklin Delano Roosevelt)認爲這是這個角色的核心。但我們現在已經看到，白宮的主人可以在多大程度上侵蝕民主準則。儘管川普在其第一個任期取得了一些有限的經濟成就，但其特點是無視法治和選舉制度，兩次彈劾審判以及針對他和他的前工作人員的各種刑事案件證明了這一點。
A second term promises to be even more incendiary. Trump has vowed to be a “dictator” in his first day in office, and has all but promised to wield the immense powers of the office to punish his political enemies. In expanding presidential immunity, the Supreme Court has in effect granted Trump — and all future presidents — carte blanche.
他的第二任期將更具煽動性。川普在上任的第一天就發誓要成爲一個「獨裁者」，並且幾乎承諾要利用辦公室的巨大權力來懲罰他的政敵。在擴大總統豁免權方面，最高法院實際上授予了川普——以及所有未來的總統——無限權力。
With courts now unable to hold a president accountable for most actions taken in office, the ruling shunts that responsibility on to the Senate and the House of Representatives. But as Trump’s failed impeachments show, the current polarised US legislature has proved particularly ill-equipped to restrain a demagogue.
由於法院現在無法讓總統對其執政期間的大多數行爲負責，這項裁決將這一責任推給了參議院和衆議院。但正如彈劾川普失敗所顯示的那樣，事實證明，目前兩極分化的美國立法機構在遏制一個煽動者方面尤其無能。
Trump may lose in November, and a lower court may still find him liable for “unofficial” acts related to his attempts to overturn the election. But the Supreme Court’s decision has done lasting damage. The American Revolution — which Ralph Waldo Emerson called “the shot heard round the world” — helped spur an international movement away from tyranny and towards democracy and accountability. By prioritising an “energetic” presidency over an accountable one, the court’s conservative justices have chipped away at a central pillar of the American system.
川普可能會在11月的大選中敗選，而下級法院可能仍會認定他要爲與他試圖推翻選舉有關的「非公職」行爲負責。但最高法院的裁決造成了持久的損害。美國革命(The American Revolution)——拉爾夫•沃爾多•愛默生(Ralph Waldo Emerson)稱之爲「全世界都能聽到的槍聲」——幫助推動了一場擺脫暴政、走向民主和問責制的國際運動。優先考慮一個「精力充沛」的總統而不是一個負責任的總統，最高法院的保守派法官已經削弱了美國製度的核心支柱。