尊敬的用户您好，这是来自FT中文网的温馨提示：如您对更多FT中文网的内容感兴趣，请在苹果应用商店或谷歌应用市场搜索“FT中文网”，下载FT中文网的官方应用。
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.
就在几周前，曼哈顿的一个陪审团裁定前总统唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)犯有34项重罪。其决定肯定了作为美国民主基石的一个理念：任何人，包括前总统，都不能凌驾于法律之上。而周一最高法院对特朗普诉美国案的裁决似乎削弱了这一原则。
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票赞成、3票反对的结果，就特朗普试图推翻2020年大选结果的指控提出豁免要求，从根本上扩大了总统豁免的概念。最高法院认为，总统可能不会因行使“核心宪法”职责（例如指挥军队）而受到刑事起诉，并且对“公职”行为具有“推定豁免权”。
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.
由首席大法官约翰•罗伯茨(John Roberts)执笔的多数意见认为，“公职”一词可以适用于总统对其管辖范围内的机构所做的任何事情。该意见指出，总统对“非公职”行为没有豁免权。
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.
下级法院现在必须在公职和非公职行为之间划清界限。最高法院的裁决几乎肯定会将任何有关选举干预案的审判推迟到11月的选举之后。选民届时将无法知晓结果，而特朗普如果再次当选，也可能将此案撤诉。最高法院也永远地改变了美国的制度——不仅是回归的特朗普，未来的其他总统也可以利用这种方式。
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.
在另一个时代，这一决定可能不会被视为一个危险的预兆，而更多地会被视为一个激烈辩论的主题。自1982年尼克松诉菲茨杰拉德(Nixon vs Fitzgerald)案以来，法院一直明确表示，总统对在任期间采取的行动免于承担民事责任。如今，法院扩大了这一原则，认为“精力充沛、独立”的行政官员不应因担心离任后可能受到刑事起诉而不敢采取必要行动。
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.
对于大多数前总统来说，犯罪行为似乎不太可能发生，因为他们尽管有过失，但一般都试图占据“道德领导的位置”，富兰克林•德拉诺•罗斯福(Franklin Delano Roosevelt)认为这是这个角色的核心。但我们现在已经看到，白宫的主人可以在多大程度上侵蚀民主准则。尽管特朗普在其第一个任期取得了一些有限的经济成就，但其特点是无视法治和选举制度，两次弹劾审判以及针对他和他的前工作人员的各种刑事案件证明了这一点。
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.
他的第二任期将更具煽动性。特朗普在上任的第一天就发誓要成为一个“独裁者”，并且几乎承诺要利用办公室的巨大权力来惩罚他的政敌。在扩大总统豁免权方面，最高法院实际上授予了特朗普——以及所有未来的总统——无限权力。
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.
由于法院现在无法让总统对其执政期间的大多数行为负责，这项裁决将这一责任推给了参议院和众议院。但正如弹劾特朗普失败所显示的那样，事实证明，目前两极分化的美国立法机构在遏制一个煽动者方面尤其无能。
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.
特朗普可能会在11月的大选中败选，而下级法院可能仍会认定他要为与他试图推翻选举有关的“非公职”行为负责。但最高法院的裁决造成了持久的损害。美国革命(The American Revolution)——拉尔夫•沃尔多•爱默生(Ralph Waldo Emerson)称之为“全世界都能听到的枪声”——帮助推动了一场摆脱暴政、走向民主和问责制的国际运动。优先考虑一个“精力充沛”的总统而不是一个负责任的总统，最高法院的保守派法官已经削弱了美国制度的核心支柱。