评论
打印
Hi. I'm Craig, and this is Crash Course Government and Politics,
嗨，我是克雷格，这是《政府和政治速成课》。
and today we're going to talk about the most important case the Supreme Court ever decided ever.
今天我们要讨论最高法院有史以来最重要的案件。
No, Stan, not Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company vs. Sawyer.
不，斯坦，不是扬斯敦钢板钢管公司诉索耶案。
Although, that is one of my favorites.
虽然，这是我最喜欢的。
Loves me some sheet and tube.
用一些纸和管爱我。
And no, it's not Ex parte Quirin.
不，这不是单方面的奎林。
Although I do love me some inept Nazi spies and submarines.
虽然我爱我一些无能的纳粹间谍和潜艇。
And no, it is not Miller v. California.
不，这不是米勒诉加州案。
Get your mind out of the gutter Stan.
把你的思想从阴沟里掏出来，斯坦。
We could play this game all day, but this episode is about judicial review: the most important power of the Supreme Court and where it came from.
我们可以整天玩这个游戏，但这一集是关于司法审查的：最高法院最重要的权力及其来源。
Don't look so disappointed.
别那么失望。
This is cool!
这个很酷！
When you think of the Supreme Court, the first thing you think about, other than those comfy robes, is the power to declare laws unconstitutional.
当你想到最高法院，你想到的第一件事，除了那些舒适的长袍，就是宣布法律违宪的权力。
The term for this awesome power, the main check that the court has on both the legislative and executive branches, is judicial review.
法院对立法和行政部门的主要制约是司法审查。
Technically, judicial review is the power of the judiciary to examine and invalidate actions undertaken by the legislative and executive branches of both the federal and state governments.
理论上，司法审查是司法机关对联邦政府和州政府的立法和行政部门采取的行动进行审查并使之无效的权力。
It's not the power to review lower court decisions.
司法审查不是审查下级法院判决的权力。
That's appellate jurisdiction.
这是上诉管辖权。
Most people think of judicial review as declaring laws unconstitutional, and that definition is okay.
大多数人认为司法审查是宣布法律违宪，这个定义是正确的。
The legal purist will quibble with you since judicial review applies to more than just laws.
法律纯粹主义者会对你吹毛求疵，因为司法审查不仅仅适用于法律。
Appellate courts, both state and federal, engage in some form of judicial review, but we're concerned here with the federal courts especially the U.S. Supreme Court.
上诉法院，包括州法院和联邦法院，进行某种形式的司法审查，但是我们这里讨论的是联邦法院，尤其是美国最高法院。
The Court has the power to review the following:
本院有权检讨下列事项：
One, Congressional laws a.k.a. statutes!
第一，国会法律，也就是法规！
Statutes.
议会立法。
Since judicial review is a form of appellate activity, it involves upholding or affirming the validity of laws, or denying it, invalidating the law in question.
由于司法审查是上诉活动，它涉及维护或肯定法律的有效性，或否认法律的有效性，使有关法律无效。
You might think that the Supreme Court does this a lot, but it doesn't and historically it almost never happened before the twentieth century.
你可能会认为最高法院经常这么做，但实际上并没有，历史上在20世纪之前几乎从未发生过。
If the court were always striking down congressional statutes, it would be hard for people to know which laws to follow,
如果法院总是推翻国会法规，人们就很难知道该遵循哪些法律，
and you'll remember that one of the main things that courts do is create expectations and predictability.
你会记得法院做的主要事情之一就是创造预期和可预测性。
For instance, you could predict that I would eventually be punching this eagle!
例如，你可以预测我最终会打这只老鹰！
Another reason why they don't invalidate laws often is that if the Court frequently overruled Congress, the Court would seem too political and people would stop trusting its judgment.
他们不经常宣布法律无效的另一个原因是，如果法院经常推翻国会的裁决，法院就会显得过于政治化，人们就会不再相信它的判决。
If the Court has any power at all, it largely stems from its prestige and reputation for being impartial and above politics.
如果说最高法院有什么权力的话，那就是它的声望和不偏不倚、凌驾于政治之上的声誉。
No one has any problems with the Supreme Court decisions, at all.
没有人对最高法院的判决有任何异议。
Two, the Court can also overturn state actions which include the laws passed by state legislatures and the activities of state executive bureaus, usually the police.
第二，法院还可以推翻州的行为，包括州立法机构通过的法律和州执行机构(通常是警察)的活动。
The power to review and overturn states comes from the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution.
审查和推翻各州的权力来自宪法中的至上条款。
Most of the time that the Supreme Court extends civil rights, it comes out of a state action.
大多数情况下，最高法院延长公民权利的期限，都是由州的行为决定的。
A good example is Brown vs. Board of Education where the Court struck down the idea of separate accommodations being equal in the context of state public schools.
布朗诉教育委员会案就是一个很好的例子，在该案中，法院驳回了在州立公立学校中，分开住宿是平等的想法。
Three, the Court can review the actions of federal bureaucratic agencies.
第三，法院可以审查联邦官僚机构的行为。
Although, we usually defer to the bureaucrat's expertise if the action is consistent with the intent of the legislature which the Court usually finds it is.
虽然如果行动符合法院通常认为的立法机关的意图，我们通常会听从官僚的专门知识。
The Court almost never strikes down Congressional delegation of power to the executive.
最高法院几乎从不推翻国会将权力授予行政部门的做法。
Although, you might think that it should.
尽管，你可能认为应该推翻。
The fourth area where the Court exercises judicial review is over Presidential actions.
法院进行司法审查的第四个领域是总统的行为。
The Court tends to defer to the President, especially in the area of national security.
法院倾向于遵从总统，特别是在国家安全领域。
The classic example of the Court overturning executive action happened in U.S. vs. Nixon where the Justices denied the President's claim of executive privilege
法院推翻行政诉讼的经典案例发生在美国诉尼克松案中，法官们否认了总统对行政特权的主张，
and forced him to turn over his recordings relating to the Watergate scandal.
并迫使他交出了与水门丑闻有关的录音。
More recently, the Court placed limits on the President's authority to deny habeas corpus to suspected terrorists in Rasul vs. Bush.
最近，法院限制了总统在拉苏尔诉布什案中否认恐怖嫌疑分子人身保护令的权力。
So, the Supremacy Clause gives the Court the authority to rule on state laws,
因此，至上条款赋予了法院对州法律进行裁决的权力，
but where exactly in the Constitution does the power of judicial review come from?
但宪法中司法审查的权力究竟从何而来?
Trick question!
跑题了！
It's not there, go look ahead, look.
它不在那里，向前看，看。
I'll wait.
我会等待。
See, not there.
看,没有。
Wow, you went through that whole thing really quickly.
哇，你很快就做完了。
Fast reader.
快的读者。
The crazy thing is that the power of judicial review comes from the Court itself.
最疯狂的是司法审查的权力来自法院本身。
How?
如何？
Let's go to the Thought Bubble.
让我们进入思想泡泡。
The Supreme Court granted itself the power of judicial review in the case of Marbury vs. Madison.
在马布里诉麦迪逊一案中，最高法院授予自己司法审查的权力。
You really should read the decision because it's a brilliant piece of politics.
你真的应该读读这个决定，因为它是一篇精彩的政治文章。
The upshot of the case was that Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Court had the power to review, uphold, and strike down executive actions pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1789, and in doing this, to strike down part of that federal law.
该案的结果是，首席大法官约翰·马歇尔裁定，法院有权根据1789年的《司法法案》，审查、支持和推翻行政行为，并以此推翻部分联邦法律。
How he got there was pretty cool.
他是怎么到那里的?
So, Marbury was an official that President John Adams, at the very end of his term, appointed to the position of Justice of the Peace.
因此，马布里是约翰·亚当斯总统在他任期即将结束时任命的一名官员，他被任命为治安法官。
When Marbury went to get his official commission certifying that he could start his job, James Madison, who was Secretary of State, refused to give it to him.
当马布里去拿他的官方委员会证明他可以开始他的工作时，当时的国务卿詹姆斯·麦迪逊，拒绝给他这份工作。
So, Marbury did what any self-respecting petitioner would do, he went to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus that would force Madison to give Marbury his job.
所以，马布里做了任何一个有自尊心的请愿者都会做的事，他去最高法院申请曼达摩斯的令状，迫使麦迪逊把他的工作交给马布里。
This is what he was supposed to do according to the Judiciary Act of 1789.
根据1789年的司法法案，这是他应该做的。
What Marshall did was brilliant!
马歇尔做的太棒了！
He ruled that yes, Marbury had a right to the commission
他裁定，马布里确实有权进入委员会，
but that the Supreme Court could not grant his writ because the law directing them to do so was unconstitutional.
但最高法院不能授予他的令状，因为指导他们这么做的法律是违宪的。
This is brilliant for two reasons.
这非常棒，原因有二。
First, by the time the time the case came before the Court, Thomas Jefferson was President.
首先，当案件提交到法院时，托马斯·杰斐逊已经是总统了。
Those of you who remember Crash Course U.S. History will recall that that less handsome man told you that Jefferson was a Democratic Republican while Adams, Marbury, and even Marshall were all Federalists.
你们中那些还记得美国历史速成班的人会记得那个不太帅的人告诉你们杰斐逊是民主党共和党人，而亚当斯、马布里，甚至马歇尔都是联邦党人。
By ruling against his own party, Marshall made a decision that was favorable to Jefferson and thus, likely to be supported.
马歇尔反对自己的政党，做出了一个对杰斐逊有利的决定，因此很可能得到支持。
The second move was even cooler.
第二步甚至更酷。
Marshall's ruling took the power of writs of mandamus away from the Court, making it look weaker,
马歇尔的裁决剥夺了法院的曼达默斯令状的权力，使其看起来更弱，
while at the same time giving the Court the power to declare the law that had granted it the mandamus power in the first place unconstitutional.
同时赋予法院宣布赋予其曼达默斯令状的法律违宪的权力。
So by weakening the Court in this instance, like Daredevil going blind as a kid, Marshall made it much stronger for the future, like Daredevil getting stronger in the future.
所以在这个案例中，马歇尔削弱了法院的权力，就像《超胆侠》在儿童时期失明一样，马歇尔让法院在未来变得更加强大，就像《超胆侠》在未来变得更加强大一样。
Thanks, Thought Bubble!
谢谢,思想泡泡！
So that's where judicial review comes from, but that still leaves many questions.
这就是司法审查的由来，但仍然存在很多问题。
A big question is, why has this ruling stuck around and hasn't been overturned by other laws or later court decisions?
一个大问题是，为什么这项裁决一直存在，没有被其他法律或后来的法院判决推翻?
Another question is, is judicial review a violation of separation of powers?
另一个问题是，司法审查是否违反了三权分立?
Some say that it's judges making laws and thus an anti-democratic usurpation of the legislature's power.
有人说，这是法官制定法律，从而反民主篡夺了立法机构的权力。
Let's talk about this rulings longevity first.
让我们先来谈谈长寿法则。
Remember when I said last time that the Supreme Court rulings are binding in lower courts?
还记得我上次说过最高法院的裁决对下级法院有约束力吗?
You don't remember do ya?
你不记得了，是吗?
You were sleepin'.
当时你睡着了。
Wake up!
醒醒！
Well, in general, Supreme Court precedents are binding on future Supreme Courts too
一般来说，最高法院的判例对未来的最高法院也有约束力，
because of the principle of stare decisis, which is Latin for “let the decision stand”;
因为遵循遵循先例原则，这在拉丁语中是“让裁决继续”的意思。
This doesn't mean that future Supreme Court's can never overturn the decisions of prior Courts, it's just that they try very hard to not do it.
这并不意味着未来的最高法院永远不能推翻以前法院的判决，只是他们非常努力地不这么做。
This idea of precedent is one way that judges can be said to make laws.
判例是法官制定法律的一种方式。
Appellate decisions are like common law in that they are binding on future courts and constrain their decisions
上诉判决就像普通法一样，对未来的法院有约束力，对他们的判决有约束力，
and because they don't have to be grounded in a specific statute.
因为他们不需要以特定的法规为基础。
Other courts have to follow the higher court's interpretation of the law,
其他法院必须遵循上级法院对法律的解释，
and this interpretation has the effect of redefining the law without actually rewriting the statute.
这种解释的效果是重新定义法律，而不是实际重写规约。
On the other hand, appellate decisions are technically not common law in that they are only binding on courts, not executive agencies or legislatures.
另一方面，上诉裁决理论上不是普通法，因为它们只对法院有约束力，而对行政机关或立法机关没有约束力。
They are, however, signals to courts and legislatures about how courts will rule in the future.
然而，它们是向法院和立法机构发出的信号，表明法院未来将如何裁决。
Maybe an example will help.
也许举个例子会有帮助。
If you watch cop shows, or you get arrested a lot, you probably know something about Miranda vs. Arizona which gave us the Miranda Warning.
如果你经常看警察的节目，或者你经常被逮捕，你可能知道米兰达诉亚利桑那州案给了我们米兰达警告。
You have the right to remain silent and all that stuff.
你有权保持沉默。
Hopefully, you've never heard that in person, though.
不过，希望您从未亲自听说过。
But hey, we're not here to judge.
但我们不是来评判的。
That's what the courts are for!
这就是法院的作用！
In that case, the Supreme Court threw out Miranda's conviction because he hadn't been told he had the right to remain silent.
在那个案子中，最高法院驳回了米兰达的判决，因为他没有被告知他有权保持沉默。
Without knowing that he didn't have to talk, he made a confession that got him convicted.
在不知情的情况下，他坦白了自己的罪行。
The court didn't rewrite Arizona's law but it sent a signal to Arizona's law enforcement agencies, and those in all the other states,
法院没有重写亚利桑那州的法律，但它向亚利桑那州的执法机构和所有其他州的执法机构发出了一个信号，
that in the future courts would throw out the convictions of defendants who hadn't been informed of their rights.
那就是未来的法院将废除对那些没有被告知其权利的被告的定罪。
As a result, police procedures changed in every state, and now the police are supposed to read the Miranda Rights to anyone they arrest.
结果，每个州的警察程序都变了，现在警察应该向他们逮捕的任何人宣读米兰达权利。
So those are the very basics of judicial review.
这就是司法审查的基础。
We've probably raised as many questions as we've answered, but that's why we're making a bunch of these videos!
我们提出的问题可能和回答的一样多，但这就是为什么我们要制作这些视频!
So we can teach it all!
所以我们可以教它所有！
All of it!
所有！
Anyway, the big concern for many is that cases like Marbury vs. Madison,
不管怎样，很多人最关心的是像马布里诉麦迪逊案这样的案件，
which give courts the power to strike down pieces of legislation,
它赋予了法院推翻立法的权力，
overturn the judgment of the elected representatives that made the laws and violate the idea of separation of powers.
推翻了制定法律的民选代表的判决，违反了权力分立的理念。
Well, that is a thorny issue, but it's one that we don't have time to de-thorn today.
这是一个棘手的问题，但我们今天没有时间去解决它。
For now, understand that judicial review is how the courts work in practice and not necessarily a defined power granted by the Constitution.
现在，请理解司法审查是法院在实践中如何运作的，而不一定是宪法赋予的一种明确的权力。
Just remember, the executive and legislative branches also operate with a lot of implied powers that aren't explicitly granted to them in the Constitution.
请记住，行政和立法部门也有许多隐含的权力，这些权力在宪法中并没有明确授予它们。
That's because the governance of the United States has evolved and changed over time to hopefully, suit the needs of the country as they change over time.
这是因为随着时间的推移，美国的治理方式已经发生了变化，希望随着时间的推移，能够适应这个国家的需要。
Thanks for watching.
感谢收看。
Crash Course Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.
《政府与政治速成班》是与PBS数字工作室合作制作的。
Support for Crash Course U.S. Government comes from Voqal.
对美国政府速成班的支持来自Voqal。
Voqal supports non-profits that use technology and media to advance social equity.
Voqal支持使用技术和媒体促进社会公平的非营利组织。
Learn more about their mission and initiatives at voqal.org.
在voqal.org上了解更多关于他们的使命和计划。
Crash Course is made with the help of these nice people who have the right to remain silent.
速成班是在这些有权保持沉默的好人的帮助下开设的。
Thanks for watching.
感谢收看。
You have the right to stop watching.
你有权停止观看。
