2018年经济学人 美国总统特朗普可以凌驾于法律之上吗?(3)

（单词翻译）

This means the only solution to any clash that Mr Trump¹ sets up between the courts and the voters is a political one.

这就意味着要解决特朗普在法庭和选民冲突的唯一办法是政治性的。

Ultimately the decision to remove a president is a matter of politics, not law.

最终，罢免总统的决定是一个政治问题，而不是法律问题。

It could hardly be otherwise, as America’s Founding Fathers foresaw.

否则是不可能的，这正和美国开国元勋们所预见的一样。

In “Federalist 65”, Alexander Hamilton explained why it was the Senate, rather than the Supreme² Court, that should sit in judgment³ on the president,

在《联邦党人文集》第65章中，亚历山大·汉密尔顿解释了审判总统的为什么是参议院，而不是最高法院。

for “who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives themselves?”

因为“谁能像代表们自己一样，恰当地成为国家的检察官呢？”

No other body, he thought, would have the necessary “confidence in its situation” to do so.

汉密尔顿认为，其他人恐没有必不可少的“对现状的信心”。

Alas⁴, that confidence has gone missing, leaving American democracy in a strange place.

遗憾的是，这种信心已经丧失，将美国民主置于一种奇怪的境地。

Thus far Republicans in Congress have stood by the president.

因此到目前为止，国会的共和党人一直是站在总统这边的。

The only thing likely to change that is a performance in the mid-terms so bad that enough of them come to see the president as an electoral liability.

除非特朗普在即将到来的中期选举中表现糟糕，让自己变成共和党人眼中的竞选包袱。

Although Democrats⁵ may well win a majority in the House, a two-thirds majority in the Senate—the threshold required to remove a president—looks unachievable.

虽然民主党很可能赢得众议院的多数席位，但要想获得参议院三分之二的席位，即罢免总统的门槛，看起来是不可能实现的。

Mr Cohen’s plea has made the president of the United States an unindicted co-conspirator in a pair of federal crimes.

科恩的认罪使得美国总统成为两起联邦罪行中未被起诉的同谋者。

That makes this a sad week for America.

这对美国来说是悲伤的一周。

But it is a shameful⁶ one for the Republican Party, whose members remain more dedicated⁷ to minimising Mr Trump’s malfeasance than to the ideal that nobody, not even the president, is above the law.

但对于共和党来说是耻辱的一周，共和党成员仍然更加致力于最小化特朗普总统的渎职行为，而不是去维护法律至高无上，即使总统也不能凌驾于法律之上的信念。