【改组法院】罗斯福第9次炉边谈话 1937年3月9日

1937年3月9日，罗斯福总统为减小来自最高法院的改革阻力，决定对美国最高法院进行改组，他先是抨击了最高法院对国家不负责任，然后提出增加首席大法官的数量，从而将自己的支持者安排进最高法院。这一行为直接撼动了美国三权分立的政治基础，因此罗斯福的行为不仅在当时遭到了大量反对，时至今日也饱受争议。许反对者称罗斯福是一个独裁者，但罗斯福的支持者还是压过了反对者，最终最高法院向罗斯福妥协，一位反对改革的大法官辞职，被罗斯福用自己的支持者替代。

Last Thursday I described in detail certain economic problems which everyone admits now face the Nation. For the many messages which have come to me after that speech, and which it is physically impossible to answer individually, I take this means of saying "thank you."

上周四，我的谈论了人尽皆知的话题，即我国面临的经济困难相关细节。那次讲话过后，我收到了许多来信，我无法逐一回复大家，就在此统一向大家说一声“谢谢”。

Tonight, sitting at my desk in the White House, I make my first radio report to the people in my second term of office.

今晚，我坐在白宫的办工作前，向大家发表我第二届总统任期的首次广播汇报。

I am reminded of that evening in March, four years ago, when I made my first radio report to you. We were then in the midst of the great banking crisis.

我想起了4年前3月份的那个晚上，我第一次向大家发表广播汇报的场景。当时我们深陷巨大的银行危机中。

Soon after, with the authority of the Congress, we asked the Nation to turn over all of its privately held gold, dollar for dollar, to the Government of the United States.
Today's recovery proves how right that policy was.

但不久，国会就授权我们用美元将私人持有的黄金全部收为美国政府公有。今天我国的复兴，证明了这一决策之正确。

But when, almost two years later, it came before the Supreme Court its constitutionality was upheld only by a five-to-four vote. The change of one vote would have thrown all the affairs of this great Nation back into hopeless chaos. In effect, four Justices ruled that the right under a private contract to exact a pound of flesh was more sacred than the main objectives of the Constitution to establish an enduring Nation.

但约两年后，当这么一个正确的决策递交至最高法院进行裁决时，其合宪性却仅以5对4的微弱优势通过。一票之差，便足以将我们这个大国的全部事务搅得天昏地暗。也就是说，有4位大法官认为，一磅肉的私人合同，比美国宪法中“建立一个长治久安国家”的主要目标还要重要神圣。

In 1933 you and I knew that we must never let our economic system get completely out of joint again - that we could not afford to take the risk of another great depression.

早在1933年，你我就深知，我们绝不能再让经济体制完全脱节——大萧条卷土重来，我们实在承受不来。

We also became convinced that the only way to avoid a repetition of those dark days was to have a government with power to prevent and to cure the abuses and the inequalities which had thrown that system out of joint.

而且我们相信，要防止那一黑暗时期卷土重来，唯一的方法就是赋予政府足够的权利，去预防并纠正那些让经济制度脱节的弊病和不公。

We then began a program of remedying those abuses and inequalities - to give balance and stability to our economic system - to make it bomb-proof against the causes of 1929.

于是后来，政府就开始计划修正这些弊病和不公——重建经济制度的平衡性与稳定性——使其能够抵御1929年的经济危机。

Today we are only part-way through that program - and recovery is speeding up to a point where the dangers of 1929 are again becoming possible, not this week or month perhaps, but within a year or two.

时至今日，计划尚未完成——国家加速复兴到了一定程度，于是1929年的危机又如雨后春笋般涌现，或许这些危机不会在一周内爆发，也不会在一个月内爆发，但是一年后呢，两年后，我们不好说。

National laws are needed to complete that program. Individual or local or state effort alone cannot protect us in 1937 any better than ten years ago.

所以我们需要国家立法来完成这一计划。时至1937年，仅靠个人、地区、各州都无法再有效地保护我们了。

It will take time - and plenty of time - to work out our remedies administratively even after legislation is passed. To complete our program of protection in time, therefore, we cannot delay one moment in making certain that our National Government has power to carry through.

即便是法案通过后，我们也需要时间——大量的时间——来制定修正弊端的政策。所以，为及时完成我们的保护经济计划，我们一刻也不能拖延，必须火速确立联邦政府的执行权。

Four years ago action did not come until the eleventh hour. It was almost too late.

4年前，我们采取行动时，直至最后一刻才得到批准。险些误了大事。

If we learned anything from the depression we will not allow ourselves to run around in new circles of futile discussion and debate, always postponing the day of decision.

如果我们在大萧条中学到了什么教训，那就是我们不能再徒劳地用搪塞诡辩绕圈子，迟迟不做出决定了。

The American people have learned from the depression. For in the last three national elections an overwhelming majority of them voted a mandate that the Congress and the President begin the task of providing that protection - not after long years of debate, but now.

美国人民当然从大萧条中吸取了教训。因为最近三次全国选举中，绝大多数人民都投票授权国会和总统采取行动保护经济——他们要求的不是商议多年后再采取行动，而是立刻马上。

The Courts, however, have cast doubts on the ability of the elected Congress to protect us against catastrophe by meeting squarely our modern social and economic conditions.

然而，法院却表现得不怎么信任人民选举出的国会，怀疑国会是否有能力满足现代的社会经济需求，从而保护人民免遭灾难。

We are at a crisis in our ability to proceed with that protection. It is a quiet crisis. There are no lines of depositors outside closed banks. But to the far-sighted it is far-reaching in its possibilities of injury to America.

所以现在的危机是，法院怀疑我们能否保护经济。这是一个无声的危机。就像倒闭的银行外，虽然还没有排起长队。但是远见之人早已预料到这对美国的危害。

I want to talk with you very simply about the need for present action in this crisis - the need to meet the unanswered challenge of one-third of a Nation ill-nourished, ill-clad, ill-housed.

我想和大家简要谈一谈在这场危机中，我们火速采取的必要性——我国有三分之一的人民食不果腹、衣不蔽体、身居陋室，我们必须帮助他们。

Last Thursday I described the American form of Government as a three horse team provided by the Constitution to the American people so that their field might be plowed. The three horses are, of course, the three branches of government - the Congress, the Executive and the Courts. Two of the horses are pulling in unison today; the third is not. Those who have intimated that the President of the United States is trying to drive that team, overlook the simple fact that the President, as Chief Executive, is himself one of the three horses.

上周三，我曾经美国政治制度比作“宪法给我们的三驾马车”，帮助美国耕田劳作。当然，这三驾马车就是政府的三大组成部分——国会、行政部和法院。其中两匹马正齐心协力拉着马车奋勇向前；而第三匹马却不愿配合。有些人含沙射影地污蔑美国总统试图操控三驾马车，却忽略了一个基本事实：美国总统作为行政部门的最高长官，本身就是拉车的三匹马之一。

It is the American people themselves who are in the driver's seat.

驾驭着这辆马车的，是美国人民自己。

It is the American people themselves who want the furrow plowed.

希望这辆马车用于耕田的，也是美国人民自己。

It is the American people themselves who expect the third horse to pull in unison with the other two.

而现在，美国人民希望第三批马与另外两匹马共同齐头并进。

I hope that you have re-read the Constitution of the United States in these past few weeks. Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again.

我希望大家在过去几周重温过美国宪法。大家要像对待《圣经》一下，反复温读宪法。

It is an easy document to understand when you remember that it was called into being because the Articles of Confederation under which the original thirteen States tried to operate after the Revolution showed the need of a National Government with power enough to handle national problems. In its Preamble, the Constitution states that it was intended to form a more perfect Union and promote the general welfare; and the powers given to the Congress to carry out those purposes can be best described by saying that they were all the powers needed to meet each and every problem which then had a national character and which could not be met by merely local action.

如果大家还记得宪法是怎么形成，那么就不难理解其内容，我们制定宪法，是因为独立战争后，十三州按照《邦联条例》运作时，愈发觉得需要建立一个强而有力的中央政府来处理国事。我国宪法在序言中指出，其旨在立善盟、促公利；对于其赋予国会用以实现这些目标的权力，最佳的理解方式是，这些权力仅是用以解决全国性的、且仅靠地方力量无法解决的问题。

But the framers went further. Having in mind that in succeeding generations many other problems then undreamed of would become national problems, they gave to the Congress the ample broad powers "to levy taxes ... and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

但是制宪者们看得更远。他们考虑到，未来几代人面临的国家问题可能会是他们无法预料的，于是便授予了国会更大的权力，包括“征税...保共守、促公利。”

That, my friends, is what I honestly believe to have been the clear and underlying purpose of the patriots who wrote a Federal Constitution to create a National Government with national power, intended as they said, "to form a more perfect union ... for ourselves and our posterity."

我的朋友们，我诚心相信宪法所言即是爱国制宪者们的本意，他们起草联邦宪法，建立了一个治理万邦的联邦政府，以实现他们所规划的目标：“为立善盟...而使吾辈及后世得享自由之幸。”

For nearly twenty years there was no conflict between the Congress and the Court. Then Congress passed a statute which, in 1803, the Court said violated an express provision of the Constitution. The Court claimed the power to declare it unconstitutional and did so declare it. But a little later the Court itself admitted that it was an extraordinary power to exercise and through Mr. Justice Washington laid down this limitation upon it: "It is but a decent respect due to the wisdom, the integrity and the patriotism of the legislative body, by which any law is passed, to presume in favor of its validity until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt."

此后将近20年的时间里，国会和最高法院都没有发生任何冲突。但是到了1803年，最高法院宣布了国会通过的一项法案违宪。当时最高法院声明，自己有权力宣布该方案违宪，并行使了这一权力。但后来，就连最高法院也认为这一权力实在过大，于是华盛顿大法官对这一权力加以限制：“立法机构通过一项法案后，最高法院在能够确切证明该法案违宪之前，必须假定该法案合法，以示对立法机构智慧、正直和爱国之成果的尊重。”

But since the rise of the modern movement for social and economic progress through legislation, the Court has more and more often and more and more boldly asserted a power to veto laws passed by the Congress and State Legislatures in complete disregard of this original limitation.

但自从国会大力推动国家社会经济朝着现代化发展以来，最高法院却愈加频繁且愈加肆意妄为地否定国会和各州的法案，完全无视了华盛顿大法官的限制。

In the last four years the sound rule of giving statutes the benefit of all reasonable doubt has been cast aside. The Court has been acting not as a judicial body, but as a policy-making body.

过去4年里，最高法院抛弃了本心，无端无理地否定各项法案。最高法院不再是司法机构，而俨然成为了决策机构。

When the Congress has sought to stabilize national agriculture, to improve the conditions of labor, to safeguard business against unfair competition, to protect our national resources, and in many other ways, to serve our clearly national needs, the majority of the Court has been assuming the power to pass on the wisdom of these acts of the Congress - and to approve or disapprove the public policy written into these laws.

在国会为稳定我国农业、改善工人工作条件、保护企业免遭不正当竞争影响、保护国家自然资源等多个明显惠及国家的法案，是否通过这些法案的决定权却掌握在最高法院的多数法官手上——他们有权批准或否定国会的法案是否有效。

That is not only my accusation. It is the accusation of most distinguished justices of the present Supreme Court. I have not the time to quote to you all the language used by dissenting justices in many of these cases. But in the case holding the Railroad Retirement Act unconstitutional, for instance, Chief Justice Hughes said in a dissenting opinion that the majority opinion was "a departure from sound principles," and placed "an unwarranted limitation upon the commerce clause." And three other justices agreed with him.

这并非我一人的指责。最高法院内的几位慧眼识珠的大法官也如此指责。我没有时间将这些大法官的屡次指责一一罗列出来。但我可以举其中几个例子，比如最高法院认定《铁路职工退休法》违宪时，休斯大法官即刻对该判决表示了反对，认为多数大法官的判断“不符合原则”，且对“商业条例增加了不必要的限制。”他的观点也得到了另外三位大法官的支持。

In the case of holding the AAA unconstitutional, Justice Stone said of the majority opinion that it was a "tortured construction of the Constitution." And two other justices agreed with him.

再以农业调整署违宪为例，斯通大法官认为多数大法官的判决是“对宪法的亵渎。”也得到了另外两位大法官的支持。

In the case holding the New York minimum wage law unconstitutional, Justice Stone said that the majority were actually reading into the Constitution their own " personal economic predilections," and that if the legislative power is not left free to choose the methods of solving the problems of poverty, subsistence, and health of large numbers in the community, then "government is to be rendered impotent." And two other justices agreed with him.

再以确立纽约州最低工资的法案违宪为例，斯通大法官认为，多数大法官实际上在按照“自己偏向的经济观点”解读宪法，而如果国会无法自由地行使立法权，帮助广大人民群众摆脱贫穷、糊口和健康的问题，那么“政府便毫无存在的意义。”这一观点也得到了另外两位大法官的支持。

In the face of these dissenting opinions, there is no basis for the claim made by some members of the Court that something in the Constitution has compelled them regretfully to thwart the will of the people.

而最高法院的部分大法官面对这些指责，遗憾地表示，宪法中的某些条款迫使他们违背人民的意愿，但这种说法是站不住脚的。

In the face of such dissenting opinions, it is perfectly clear that, as Chief Justice Hughes has said, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."

他们面对这些指责的做法，实际上正如休斯大法官所说的那样，“我们生活在同一部宪法下，但宪法的内容却由法官们说了算。”

The Court in addition to the proper use of its judicial functions has improperly set itself up as a third house of the Congress - a super-legislature, as one of the justices has called it - reading into the Constitution words and implications which are not there, and which were never intended to be there.

最高法院在行使自己应有的司法职能外，还越界将自己设立为了国会的第三个议院——一位大法官甚至称其为“超级立法机构”——他们无中生有地解读宪法的条例，无端地推定其措辞含义。

We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.

因此，我们整个国家，都到了必须采取行动的地步，我们要将宪法从最高法院手中解救出来，还要将拯救最高法院本身。但我们必须想办法，不再受制于最高法院，只遵从宪法本身。我们想要的，是一个屈从服务于宪法的最高法院，而不是凌驾于宪法之上的最高法院。在法庭上，我们希望看到一个法治政府，而不是人治政府。

I want - as all Americans want - an independent judiciary as proposed by the framers of the Constitution. That means a Supreme Court that will enforce the Constitution as written, that will refuse to amend the Constitution by the arbitrary exercise of judicial power - in other words by judicial say-so. It does not mean a judiciary so independent that it can deny the existence of facts which are universally recognized.

包括我在内的全体美国人都认为，我国的司法机构应当独立运作，正如制宪者规划的那样。因此最高法院只能执行宪法中的成文条例，而阻止滥用司法权来更改宪法内容——也就是说，最高法院无权更改宪法。司法机构独立运行，也并不意味着它可以否定公认的客观事实。

How then could we proceed to perform the mandate given us? It was said in last year's Democratic platform, "If these problems cannot be effectively solved within the Constitution, we shall seek such clarifying amendment as will assure the power to enact those laws, adequately to regulate commerce, protect public health and safety, and safeguard economic security." In other words, we said we would seek an amendment only if every other possible means by legislation were to fail.

那么我们应该怎样执行肩负的任务呢？去年民主党的纲领中写道，“如果这些问题不能在宪法的框架下有效解决，那么我们就要用宪法修正案明确我们执行法律的权力，以监管规范商贸、维护公共健康安全，保持国家经济稳定。”换言之，我们说过，只有在其他法律手段全部失败的情况下，我们才会提出宪法修正案。

When I commenced to review the situation with the problem squarely before me, I came by a process of elimination to the conclusion that, short of amendments, the only method which was clearly constitutional, and would at the same time carry out other much needed reforms, was to infuse new blood into all our Courts. We must have men worthy and equipped to carry out impartial justice. But, at the same time, we must have Judges who will bring to the Courts a present-day sense of the Constitution - Judges who will retain in the Courts the judicial functions of a court, and reject the legislative powers which the courts have today assumed.

当我审视摆在面前的问题时，我排除了其他方案，得出了最终结论，出宪法修正案之外，唯一既符合宪法、又可以满足我国迫切的改革需求的方法，就是向最高法院注入新的血液。我们必须让有才有德之人进入最高法院，才能确保执法公正无私。但除此之外，我们还必须确保，这些大法官要能够与时俱进地解读宪法——他们会让最高法院仅履行其负的职能，阻止最高法院像现在这样干涉立法权。

In forty-five out of the forty-eight States of the Union, Judges are chosen not for life but for a period of years. In many States Judges must retire at the age of seventy. Congress has provided financial security by offering life pensions at full pay for Federal Judges on all Courts who are willing to retire at seventy. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, that pension is $20,000 a year. But all Federal Judges, once appointed, can, if they choose, hold office for life, no matter how old they may get to be.

在联邦的48个州中，有45个州的法官都并非终身任职，而是只有几年任期。许多州都规定，法官在年满70岁后必须退休。国会会为所有退休的联邦法官提供与其工资相等的终身养老金，保障其经济能力。对最高法院的大法官来说，退休后每年可享有20000美元的退休金。但是所有联邦法官一经任命，无论他们年龄多大，都可以终身任职，除非自愿退休。

What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.

那么我的提议是什么呢？很简单：联邦法院的法官或大法官年满70岁后，却不愿领金退休的话，那么在职总统便可以根据宪法，在经过美国参议院批准后任命一位新法官。

That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all Federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries.

这一计划主要有两个目的。一来，我们可以源源不断地将新鲜年轻的血液注入司法体系，使得联邦所有司法机构管理更加高效，同时节省更多成本；二来，让年轻人处理社会经济问题也更好，因为他们亲身经历过当代社会的实际情况，了解普通群众的生活和工作环境。这一计划会防止国家司法机构过于僵化，从而让宪法与时俱进。

The number of Judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present Judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy.

任命多少名新的法官，将完全由当前超过70岁的法官数量决定，未来如有更多法官年满70岁不愿退休，新法官的数量也会同等增加。

If, for instance, any one of the six Justices of the Supreme Court now over the age of seventy should retire as provided under the plan, no additional place would be created. Consequently, although there never can be more than fifteen, there may be only fourteen, or thirteen, or twelve. And there may be only nine.

比方说，最高法院现在已有6名大法官年逾70岁，如果他们中有任何一人选择退休，那么我们便可以少增设一名大法官。所以以此类推，我们大法官的数量不可能超过15人，可能只有14个，13个，12个。甚至依然只有9个。

There is nothing novel or radical about this idea. It seeks to maintain the Federal bench in full vigor. It has been discussed and approved by many persons of high authority ever since a similar proposal passed the House of Representatives in 1869.

这一想法并不新颖，也不激进。只是为了保证联邦法官能充满朝气。其实自从1689年众议院通过了一类似提案以来，政府许多高层官员就在讨论这一改革，且许多人都表示支持。

Why was the age fixed at seventy? Because the laws of many States, the practice of the Civil Service, the regulations of the Army and Navy, and the rules of many of our Universities and of almost every great private business enterprise, commonly fix the retirement age at seventy years or less.

为什么把退休年龄规定为70岁呢？因为多数州的法律、国家公职人员条例、陆海军军规、许多大学的校规和各大私人企业的公司规章，都将退休年龄定到了70岁，甚至更低。

The statute would apply to all the courts in the Federal system. There is general approval so far as the lower Federal courts are concerned. The plan has met opposition only so far as the Supreme Court of the United States itself is concerned. If such a plan is good for the lower courts it certainly ought to be equally good for the highest Court from which there is no appeal.

这一法规适用于所有联邦法院。而且次级联邦法院普遍支持这一法规。单单只有美国联邦最高法院反对这一计划。如果这一计划对次级法院有利，那么按理说它应对最高法院同样有利才是，这一点毋庸置疑。

Those opposing this plan have sought to arouse prejudice and fear by crying that I am seeking to "pack" the Supreme Court and that a baneful precedent will be established.
What do they mean by the words "packing the Court"?

反对这一改革的人，声称我在“绑架”最高法院，开创了一个危险的先河，借此散播偏见和恐惧。他们说的“绑架法院”是什么意思呢？

Let me answer this question with a bluntness that will end all honest misunderstanding of my purposes.

我来直截了当地回答这个问题，对于真正误解了我意图的人，我将打消你们的顾虑。

If by that phrase "packing the Court" it is charged that I wish to place on the bench spineless puppets who would disregard the law and would decide specific cases as I wished them to be decided, I make this answer: that no President fit for his office would appoint, and no Senate of honorable men fit for their office would confirm, that kind of appointees to the Supreme Court. But if by that phrase the charge is made that I would appoint and the Senate would confirm Justices worthy to sit beside present members of the Court who understand those modern conditions, that I will appoint Justices who will not undertake to override the judgment of the Congress on legislative policy, that I will appoint Justices who will act as Justices and not as legislators - if the appointment of such Justices can be called "packing the Courts," then I say that I and with me the vast majority of the American people favor doing just that thing- now.

如果“绑架法院”的意思是，我会架空法官的权力，使之成为我的傀儡，让他们按照我的意愿判决案例，那么请听好我的回答：任何一个合格的总统都不会任命自己的亲信进入最高法院，而且由正人君子组成的参议院也不会批准这种任命。如果，“绑架法院”的意思是，除现任大法官之外，我会新任命能够承担起当代艰巨任务的大法官，而且参议院也会批准我的任命的话，那么是的，我任命的大法官，不会否定国会的立法政策判断，我任命的大法官，只会做好自己大法官分内的工作，而不会介入立法事务——如果任命这样的大法官，会被诽谤为“绑架法院”，那么我只能说，我和大多数美国人民现在都赞成“绑架法院”。

Is it a dangerous precedent for the Congress to change the number of the Justices? The Congress has always had, and will have, that power. The number of justices has been changed several times before, in the Administration of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson - both signers of the Declaration of Independence - Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant.

那么国会改变大法官的数量，会开创危险的先河吗？其实国会一直都拥有这种权力。在约翰·亚当斯和托马斯·杰斐逊执政时，大法官的数量就曾多次更改——这二位都是《独立宣言》的签署者，此外更改过大法官数量的还有安德鲁·杰克逊、亚伯拉罕·林肯和尤里西斯·S·格兰特。

I suggest only the addition of Justices to the bench in accordance with a clearly defined principle relating to a clearly defined age limit. Fundamentally, if in the future, America cannot trust the Congress it elects to refrain from abuse of our Constitutional usages, democracy will have failed far beyond the importance to it of any king of precedent concerning the Judiciary.

而我建议的改革原则，只是通过增加法官数量，来对法官制定年龄限制。从根本上来说，如果美国人民不相信自己选举的国会，认为国会在未来会滥用宪法的权力，那么我们的民主制度就已经彻彻底底的失败了，相比之下，美国出了个帝王，要开创干涉司法独立的先河，就根本不值一提。

We think it so much in the public interest to maintain a vigorous judiciary that we encourage the retirement of elderly Judges by offering them a life pension at full salary. Why then should we leave the fulfillment of this public policy to chance or make independent on upon the desire or prejudice of any individual Justice?
It is the clear intention of our public policy to provide for a constant flow of new and younger blood into the Judiciary. Normally every President appoints a large number of District and Circuit Court Judges and a few members of the Supreme Court. Until my first term practically every President of the United States has appointed at least one member of the Supreme Court. President Taft appointed five members and named a Chief Justice; President Wilson, three; President Harding, four, including a Chief Justice; President Coolidge, one; President Hoover, three, including a Chief Justice.

我们认为，让司法机构充满年轻朝气是符合大众利益的，所以我们为年迈的法官提供与其薪水相当的退休金，建议他们退休。那么，我们为什么放弃实现这一政策的决定权，或者说，将决定权交给大法官，完全由他们的意愿决定呢？因为我们政策的目标，是让年轻血液源源不断地注入司法机构。通常每一位总统上任时，都会任命大量的地区巡回法官，还有少部分最高法院法官。在我的第一个任期之前，几乎每一位美国总统上任时，都至少任命了一位最高法院法官。塔夫脱总统任命了5位法官，并提名了一名大法官；威尔逊总统任命了3位法官；哈丁总统任命了4位法官，其中一位是大法官；柯立芝总统任命了1位法官；胡佛总统任命了3位法官，其中一位是大法官。

Such a succession of appointments should have provided a Court well-balanced as to age. But chance and the disinclination of individuals to leave the Supreme bench have now given us a Court in which five Justices will be over seventy-five years of age before next June and one over seventy. Thus a sound public policy has been defeated.

这几位总统的任命，本该能让最高法院的年龄保持平衡。但是由于各位大法官不愿意退休，不愿意离开最高法院，导致现在我们的最高法院年龄过大，到6月时，会有5名大法官年满75岁，1名大法官年满70岁。所以他们否定了我们合理的政策。

I now propose that we establish by law an assurance against any such ill-balanced Court in the future. I propose that hereafter, when a Judge reaches the age of seventy, a new and younger Judge shall be added to the Court automatically. In this way I propose to enforce a sound public policy by law instead of leaving the composition of our Federal Courts, including the highest, to be determined by chance or the personal indecision of individuals.

所以我现在提议，以法律形式来确保最高法院在未来不会年龄失衡。我提议，今后每当有一位法官年满70岁时，最高法院就自动新增一名更加年轻的法官。我提议，以这种法律方式贯彻我们合理的公共政策，而不是将其交由包括最高法院在内的联邦各法院，交由各位法官凭借个人喜好和优柔寡断随意决定。

If such a law as I propose is regarded as establishing a new precedent, is it not a most desirable precedent?

如果非要说我这一举动是开创了某一种先河，那难道这一先河不是正面的吗？

Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgement of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.

我和所有律师、全体美国人民一样，对这场不可避免的纠纷深表遗憾。但是美国人民的福祉和美国宪法永远是我们的首要顾虑。我们今天与最高法院产生纠纷，并不是与最高法院这一机构有纠纷，而是与最高法院里的司法人员有纠纷。我们不能将宪法赋予我们的使命交给恐惧未来的少数人决定，他们不愿意采纳我们为解决当代问题采取的必要措施。

This plan of mine is no attack on the Court; it seeks to restore the Court to its rightful and historic place in our Constitutional Government and to have it resume its high task of building anew on the Constitution "a system of living law." The Court itself can best undo what the Court has done.

我提出这一计划并不是想攻击最高法院；而是希望根据宪法规定，让法院恢复其在政府中应有的历史地位，从而让其能够以宪法为基础，继续其建成“一套与时俱进的法律体系”的崇高任务。毕竟，解铃还须系铃人。

I have thus explained to you the reasons that lie behind our efforts to secure results by legislation within the Constitution. I hope that thereby the difficult process of constitutional amendment may be rendered unnecessary. But let us examine the process.

我刚刚向大家解释了，我们为什么要捍卫国会的合宪决议。我希望以这种方式避免宪法修正案不必要的繁琐程序。不过我们可以看一下宪法修正案的通过程序。

There are many types of amendment proposed. Each one is radically different from the other. There is no substantial groups within the Congress or outside it who are agreed on any single amendment.

宪法修正提案有许多种性质。每一种性质都截然各不相同。国会内外，都尚未有任何主要团体对某一项宪法修正案达成过一致。

It would take months or years to get substantial agreement upon the type and language of the amendment. It would take months and years thereafter to get a two-thirds majority in favor of that amendment in both Houses of the Congress.
Then would come the long course of ratification by three-fourths of all the States. No amendment which any powerful economic interests or the leaders of any powerful political party have had reason to oppose has ever been ratified within anything like a reasonable time. And thirteen states which contain only five percent of the voting population can block ratification even though the thirty-five States with ninety-five percent of the population are in favor of it.

一项宪法修正案的定性和措辞，都需要经过几个月甚至几年的反复打磨，才能递交给国会。然后，修正案还需要再花费少则几月，多则几年的时间来在国会两院进行表决，得到了参众两院三分之二赞成票数后才可以通过。然后还要交于全国各州表决，等待修正案得到四分之三以上的州支持，这一过程更加漫长。但凡有强大的利益集团或者政党领袖据理力争，反对修正案，那这一项修正案都不要妄想能在短时间内得到通过。而且就算有占据我国总人口95%的35个州都批准了修正案，另外仅占我国人口5%的13个州依旧可以阻止修正案通过。

A very large percentage of newspaper publishers, Chambers of Commerce, Bar Association, Manufacturers' Associations, who are trying to give the impression that they really do want a constitutional amendment would be the first to exclaim as soon as an amendment was proposed, "Oh! I was for an amendment all right, but this amendment you proposed is not the kind of amendment that I was thinking about. I am therefore, going to spend my time, my efforts and my money to block the amendment, although I would be awfully glad to help get some other kind od amendment ratified."

很多报纸出版社、商会、律师协会还有企业协会，都会让政府觉得他们迫切希望对宪法进行修正，但是等议员真的提出一项宪法修正案过后，他们又立刻惊呼，“哦！我的确希望对宪法进行修正，但是你提出的修正案不是我想要的。所以我要花上我的时间、精力和金钱阻止这一修正案通过，好省出时间让我想要的修正案尽早提上日程。”

Two groups oppose my plan on the ground that they favor a constitutional amendment. The first includes those who fundamentally object to social and economic legislation along modern lines. This is the same group who during the campaign last Fall tried to block the mandate of the people.

有两种人反对我对法院的改革，理由是他们希望以宪法修正案解决问题。第一种人，是根本就不赞成我们与时俱进地颁布社会经济法案。去年秋天的大选中，他们还试图阻止人民表达的意愿。

Now they are making a last stand. And the strategy of that last stand is to suggest the time-consuming process of amendment in order to kill off by delay the legislation demanded by the mandate.

现在他们还在负隅顽抗。他们负隅顽抗的手段，便是利用宪法修正案耗时极长的复杂程序，来阻止政府需要的法案通过。

To them I say: I do not think you will be able long to fool the American people as to your purposes.

对于这些人，我想说：你们不可能靠一直欺骗美国人民达到自己的目的。

The other groups is composed of those who honestly believe the amendment process is the best and who would be willing to support a reasonable amendment if they could agree on one.

第二种人，是真心觉得修正案是最佳解决方式，如果届时他们觉得修正案没有什么问题，他们就愿意支持我们的修正案通过。

To them I say: we cannot rely on an amendment as the immediate or only answer to our present difficulties. When the time comes for action, you will find that many of those who pretend to support you will sabotage any constructive amendment which is proposed. Look at these strange bed-fellows of yours. When before have you found them really at your side in your fights for progress?

对于这些人，我想说：我们不能将修正案作为解决当前问题的最佳方法或唯一方法。等我们真的提出修正案后，你会发现，有许多人会妨碍合理的修正案通过，他们的支持是假装的。仔细看看你身边这些貌合神离的人。你真的觉得，他们会和你一起致力于国家发展吗？

And remember one thing more. Even if an amendment were passed, and even if in the years to come it were to be ratified, its meaning would depend upon the kind of Justices who would be sitting on the Supreme Court Bench. An amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, is what the Justices say it is rather than what its framers or you might hope it is.

而且别忘了。就算修正案能在几年内通过批准，其最终解释权还是归最高法院的大法官所有。修正案也可能会变得跟宪法本身一样，被大法官们随意解释，而偏离立法者和人民的意愿。

This proposal of mine will not infringe in the slightest upon the civil or religious liberties so dear to every American.

而我提议的方法，则丝毫不会侵犯美国人民珍视的公民自由和宗教自由。

My record as Governor and President proves my devotion to those liberties. You who know me can have no fear that I would tolerate the destruction by any branch of government of any part of our heritage of freedom.

我担任州长和总统时的所作所为，都证明了我对自由的钟爱。了解我的人都知道，我绝不容忍任何破坏政府部门，或自由遗产的行为。

The present attempt by those opposed to progress to play upon the fears of danger to personal liberty brings again to mind that crude and cruel strategy tried by the same opposition to frighten the workers of America in a pay-envelope propaganda against the Social Security Law. The workers were not fooled by that propaganda then. The people of America will not be fooled by such propaganda now.

一些反对进步的人，现在试图利用大家对失去个人自由的恐惧来阻止改革，这让我们再次想起，当年我们通过《社会保障法》时，这群反派对曾在工资信封中写上危言耸听的政治宣传标语，企图以这种低劣恶毒的手段恐吓美国工人。当时的美国工人就没有相信他们的胡言。而今天的美国人民照相不会被欺骗。

I am in favor of action through legislation:

我只赞成以法律形式推动改革：

First, because I believe that it can be passed at this session of the Congress.

第一是因为，我相信本次国会愿意通过这一法案。

Second, because it will provide a reinvigorated, liberal-minded Judiciary necessary to furnish quicker and cheaper justice from bottom to top.

第二，该法案将解放我国司法机构的思想，使之焕发活力，进而能够自下而上、快捷有效地伸张公正。

Third, because it will provide a series of Federal Courts willing to enforce the Constitution as written, and unwilling to assert legislative powers by writing into it their own political and economic policies.

第三，该法案将让联邦法院乐意执行宪法的成文条例，同时不再将法官的个人政治经济看法强加入宪法，从而侵犯立法权。

During the past half century the balance of power between the three great branches of the Federal Government, has been tipped out of balance by the Courts in direct contradiction of the high purposes of the framers of the Constitution. It is my purpose to restore that balance. You who know me will accept my solemn assurance that in a world in which democracy is under attack, I seek to make American democracy succeed. You and I will do our part.

在过去的半个世纪中，联邦政府三权分立、相互制衡的原则被法院打破，这是制宪者们十分不愿意看到的结果。而我的目标，就是重新制衡法院。在世界各地掀起反民主浪潮的大背景下，我向大家保证，我会捍卫美国民主制度，了解我的人一定不会怀疑我的诚意。而你我都要为此各尽其职。

声明：本人仅按照原文翻译内容，演讲内容不代表本人观点。此专栏仅供历史和英语交流学习使用，任何读者皆可引用本人的译本。

希望来学习英语的观众明白：我觉得这些专栏的主要精华在于英语原文，而并非我的译本，我的译本很大程度上只是供来学习历史的观众使用的。本人的英语水平一般，翻译得并不会多么精彩，只能在你看不懂时来帮助你了解这些演讲内容最基本的意思，而且翻译时难免会出现差错，切勿直接完全以我的译本为标准。如发现有翻译错误或者歧义内容，欢迎指正。

希望来学习历史的观众明白：任何历史人物都有一定的局限性，随着时代发展，很多观点看法可能已经不再适用今天的世界，西方的观点也不一定适用于我们。通过了解这些演讲，仅可给我们提供一个更全面了解过去和世界的渠道。我们可以从优秀的历史、当代人物身上学到很多，但是请保持独立思考，理性看待演讲内容，切勿全信或将其奉为真理。