Name: 彈劾。辯方稱特朗普的言論受第一修正案保護 (Impeachment: Defense says Trump rhetoric protected by First Amendment)
Uploaded: 2021-02-13T20:30:33.000Z
Duration: 2 min 9 s

情態副詞

Wilson in his law lectures, the first of their kind under the Constitution, plainly states that the Senate may not ignore the Constitution in impeachment proceedings.

威爾遜在他的法律講座中，首次根據憲法，明確指出參議院在彈劾程序中不得無視憲法。

If the complaint of conduct is constitutional, it cannot be impeachable.

如果行為申訴符合憲法，就不能彈劾。

Are we to ignore the words and teachings of James Wilson?

難道我們要無視詹姆斯-威爾遜的言論和教誨嗎？

Ignoring the First Amendment would conflict with the senators oath of office.

忽視第一修正案會與參議員的宣誓相沖突。

It would also conflict with well settled Supreme Court precedent and ignore the intent of the framers of the Constitution, such as James Wilson.

它還將與最高法院的既定先例相沖突，並無視憲法制定者（如詹姆斯-威爾遜）的意圖。

Above all else, ignoring the Constitution would adopt the new Raskin common sense doctrine we heard yesterday, eroding hundreds of years of First Amendment protections.

最重要的是，無視憲法將採用我們昨天聽到的拉斯金新常識學說，侵蝕數百年的第一修正案保護。

If the House managers had their way, they would ignore all of the Constitution.

如果眾議院經理們有辦法，他們會無視所有的憲法。

They would have Mr Trump sitting here without lawyers and who would be next.

他們會讓特朗普先生在沒有律師的情況下坐在這裡，下一個會是誰。

Okay, you must reject this invitation to ignore the First Amendment.

好吧，你必須拒絕這個無視第一修正案的邀請。

It is anti American and would set dangerous precedent forever.

這是反美國的，將永遠開創一個危險的先例。

Trump was an elected official, and there is an entire body of law Supreme Court landmark cases supporting the conclusion that Mr Trump actually has enhanced free speech rights because he is an elected official.

特朗普是一名民選官員，有一整套法律最高法院的標誌性案例支持這樣的結論：特朗普先生實際上有增強的言論自由權利，因為他是民選官員。

 Thes cases are ignored by the House managers and law professors, and that, too, is total intellectual dishonesty. 

Thes的案例被眾經理和法學教授忽略了，這也是完全的智力不誠實。