Name: 費裡德的觀點：現代總統權力遠超創始人想像！ (Fareed's Take: The modern presidents wield authority far beyond anything the founders envisioned)
Uploaded: 2025-12-25T17:05:04.000Z
Duration: 11 min 10 s

In a conversation with a friend originally from Pakistan, I lamented that country's recent decision to give its head of army expanded powers, including lifetime immunity from legal prosecution.

我跟一位巴基斯坦朋友哈拉時，感嘆他們國家最近決定給予總司令擴大的權力，包括終身免於法律起訴。

My friend replied, we're just following in America's footsteps.

我朋友回說，我們只是在跟隨美國的腳步。

Didn't your Supreme Court rule that the president could kill his political opponent and yet be immune from prosecution?

你們的最高法院不是裁定總統可以殺害他的政敵，卻仍能免於起訴嗎？

Welcome to America's new democratic export.

The Unchecked Executive if America's founding fathers were to come back and look at their legacy, what would stun them, without a doubt, is the modern presidency.

失控的行政權如果建國元勳們回來看看他們的遺產，毫無疑問會讓他們震驚的，就是現代總統制。

They designed the American political system explicitly to fragment power.

他們設計美國政治體系時，就是為了要分裂權力。

They were reacting against a monarch, and the accumulation of all power is in the same hands.

他們是在反對君主制，而現在權力集中在同一個人手上。

這是《聯邦論》第47篇的一段話。

They purposefully conceived of a decentralized and restrained executive described in the notably brief Article 2.

他們刻意構想了一個分散且受約束的行政權，這在簡短的第二條中有說明。

The presidency was an office for faithfully executing the laws, bounded by carefully constructed checks from the legislature and the judiciary.

總統這個職位原本是為了忠實執行法律，並受到立法和司法精心構建的制衡約束。

Congress, by contrast, was named the first branch of government and vested with the lion's share of authority the the powers to tax, spend, declare war, and

相較之下，國會被命名為政府的第一分支，並被賦予了絕大部分的權力，包括稅收、支出、宣戰和

James Madison, the de facto author of the Constitution, explicitly acknowledged this fact in Federalist 51, writing that in republican government the legislative authority necessarily predominates.

憲法的實際起草人詹姆斯·麥迪遜在《聯邦論》第51篇中明確承認了這一點，他寫道，在共和制政府中，立法權必然佔主導地位。

Even Alexander Hamilton, often thought to have urged an imperial presidency, in fact believed strongly that the president had few monarchical powers.

就連常被認為主張帝王式總統制的亞歷山大·漢密爾頓，實際上也堅信總統的君主權力非常有限。

In Federalist 69, he contrasts the British king with the American president, saying the latter is elected for merely a four year term and is amenable to personal punishment and disgrace.

在《聯邦論》第69篇中，他將英國國王與美國總統進行對比，指出後者僅被選為四年任期，並且會受到個人懲罰和譴責。

not the president, had been given the powers to provide advice and consent on treaties, declare war, and

而非總統，被賦予了對條約提供意見和同意、宣戰以及

The reason the president's foreign policy powers are mostly limited to military command, he explains in Federalist 75, is that an avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth.

他在《聯邦論》第75篇中解釋說，總統的外交政策權力大多僅限於軍事指揮，是因為貪婪的人可能會被誘惑，為了獲取財富而背叛國家利益。

An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents.

一個野心勃勃的人可能會以一個外國勢力的幫助來成就自己的野心，而這將是他背叛選民的代價。

Yet by the 1960s, this finely tuned mechanism had clearly seized up.

但到了 1960 年代，這個精密的機制顯然已經卡住了。

the media's tendency to nationalize and centralize attention created a one way ratchet, forever increasing unchecked presidential power.

媒體將關注點國家化、集中化的趨勢，造就了一個單向的棘輪，讓失控的總統權力不斷擴張。

This dramatic imbalance culminated in the constitutional crises of the Vietnam War and Watergate.

這種嚴重的失衡，最終導致了越戰和水門事件的憲政危機。

And in the 1970s, Congress, finally energized by bipartisan outrage, passed a series of laws designed to rein in executive excess.

而在 1970 年代，國會終於被跨黨派的憤怒所激勵，通過了一系列旨在約束行政權濫用的法律。

For example, the Inspector General act of 1978 created a cadre of internal watchdogs to root out waste and fraud in departments premised on the understanding that they would be protected from political retaliation.

例如，1978 年的《監察長法案》設立了一批內部監督者，以肅清各部門的浪費和舞弊，其前提是這些監督者將受到政治報復的保護。

這一整套制衡措施並沒有奏效。

While Congress established the legal mechanisms for control, for example regarding war powers, it lacked the collective political will to hold the president to them.

儘管國會建立了法律機制來進行控制，例如在戰爭權力方面，但它卻缺乏集體的政治意願來約束總統遵守這些規定。

Furthermore, after 911 War on Terror resolutions effectively nullified these restraints, all but giving presidents carte blanche for the use of military force.

此外，911 恐攻後，反恐決議有效地使這些制衡措施失效，幾乎給予總統軍事力量使用上的絕對權力。

After Nixon, both parties had agreed to a set of powerful norms, for example firewalling the Justice Department from the White House.

尼克森之後，兩黨都同意了一系列強而有力的規範，例如將司法部與白宮劃清界線。

One principle established that the president should not direct the attorney general to investigate or prosecute specific individuals.

其中一項原則確立，總統不應訓示司法部長調查或起訴特定個人。

Additionally, presidents voluntarily released their tax returns and placed assets in blind trusts.

此外，總統們會自願公開他們的稅務申報單，並將資產放入盲信託。

Financial transparency designed to assure the public that the commander in chief was not profiting from the office.

財務透明化的目的是向公眾保證，總司令不會從職位中獲利。

The Trump administration has shredded these constraints.

川普政府已經撕毀了這些限制。

Even worse, the most egregious violations have been sanctified by the Supreme Court based on the bizarre unitary executive theory.

更糟的是，最令人髮指的違規行為，卻被最高法院以怪誕的單一行政權理論加以神聖化。

This once fringe legal doctrine asserts that a terse phrase in Article 2 somehow grants the president unrestricted authority over the executive branch.

這項曾經是邊緣的法律學說聲稱，《第二條》中的一句簡短話語，不知怎地賦予了總統對行政部門不受限制的權力。

Even though Congress has been explicitly given the power of the PEARSE and can use it to create agencies and departments, determine their structure and functions, and

儘管國會被明確賦予了監督權，並可藉此設立機構和部門，決定其結構和職能，以及

direct where its funds be spent, the president has virtually unlimited powers under this interpretation to run those agencies even when he violates specific congressional intent.

決定其資金的去向，但在這項解釋下，總統即使違反了國會的具體意圖，也幾乎擁有無限的權力來管理這些機構。

This expansion of executive power has culminated in the court's 2024 decision in Trump v.

行政權力的擴張，最終導致了法院在 2024 年川普訴案中的判決。

United States, in which the Court held that the presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions within their core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity at a minimum for all other official acts.

美國，法院在此裁定總統在其核心憲法權力範圍內的行為享有絕對豁免權，至少在其他所有公務行為方面享有推定豁免權。

In a blistering dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that under this standard, a president could argu order Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival and be shielded from criminal liability, provided the order was given through official channels.

桑妮雅·索托馬約法官在一份措辭嚴厲的異議中指出，根據這項標準，總統可以聲稱命令海豹六隊暗殺政敵，並免於刑事責任，前提是該命令是通過官方管道發出的。

The American presidency has journeyed from a modest, constitutionally constrained office to a super presidency that commands total attention and power.

美國總統制已經從一個溫和、受憲法約束的職位演變成一個掌握全部注意力和權力的超級總統制。

Donald Trump has pushed these powers to the utmost, but

唐納·川普將這些權力推向極致，但是

he has been enabled by a failure of political courage in Congress and an ideological Supreme Court that seems to have lost any respect for original intent and precedent.

他卻因為國會缺乏政治勇氣，以及一個似乎已對最初的意圖和先例毫無敬意的意識形態最高法院而得以實現。

The result is a structural asymmetry, where the first branch of government is now the weakest and the Supreme Court is a rubber stamp.

結果造成了結構性不對稱，政府的第一分支現在最弱，而最高法院則淪為橡皮圖章。

The Court does have a chance to stop this accumulation of power by asserting what they plainly know is true that the president can't just declare national emergencies at will to place and remove tariffs unilaterally.

法院有機會阻止這種權力集中，主張他們顯然知道的真相——總統不能隨意宣佈國家緊急狀態來單方面設置和移除關稅。

If not, the American presidency will become for the world not an example of limited constitutional government, but

如果不是這樣，美國總統制將不會成為有限憲政政府的典範，而是

rather of a modern dictatorship wielding far more unbridled power than George III did when the Founding Fathers rebelled against him 250 years ago.

一個現代獨裁者，其權力比250年前建國元勳反對的喬治三世還要不受約束。

Polls show that Democrats and Republicans not only disagree on policy, they each believe that they are operating with a different set of basic facts.

民調顯示，民主黨人和共和黨人不僅在政策上意見不合，他們還認為自己是基於不同的基本事實在運作。

It is in this political climate that the United States will celebrate its 250th birthday next year.

正是在這樣的政治氛圍下，美國將迎來明年的250週年國慶。

In honor of this milestone, the historian and biographer Walter Isaacson has written a book about the most famous sentence from the Declaration of Independence.

為了紀念這個里程碑，歷史學家兼傳記作家Walter Isaacson寫了一本關於《獨立宣言》中最著名的一句話的書。

As a reminder, it reads, we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and

提醒大家一下，這句話是：「我們認為這些真理是不言而喻的：人人生而平等，造物者賦予他們若干不可剝奪的權利，其中包括生命權、自由權和

The book is called the Greatest Sentence Ever Written.

這本書的名字是《史上最偉大的句子》。

Well, you know, let's look at the edits of it.

嗯，你知道的，我們來看看它的修改稿吧。

It's wonderful that the first draft, those of you and I were both writers and editors, is in the basement of the Library of Congress.

很高興這份初稿，你我都是作者和編輯，就藏在國會圖書館的地下室裡。

And Jefferson starts it with, we hold these shoes to be sacred.

傑佛遜開頭寫道，我們認為這些鞋子是神聖的。

And there's Benjamin Franklin's black backslashes of apprenticeship putting in self evident because he had just come back from visiting David Hume, who talked about self evident truths of logic, saying, okay, our rights come not from the dogma of religion, but

還有班傑明·富蘭克林從學徒時期留下的塗改痕跡，加上了「不證自明」，因為他剛拜訪完大衛·休謨，休謨談論邏輯上的不證自明，說，好的，我們的權利不是來自宗教教條，而是

Then the sentence goes on, they're endowed with rights.

然後這句話繼續說，他們被賦予了權利。

But that itself is fascinating because so many people think of this as being divinely granted.

但這本身就很有趣，因為很多人認為這是神賜予的。

It's almost saying no, but the sentence goes on to say endowed by.

這幾乎是在說不，但這句話繼續說，被賦予了。

And as John Adams writes, their creator with.

就像約翰·亞當斯寫的，他們的創造者賦予了。

And so you see just in the editing of a half of a sentence, them doing the balance of the role of divine providence, the role of rationality in creating the nation, but

所以你看，光是編輯半句話，他們就扮演了神意、理性能創造國家的角色，但

not banking it totally based on religious beliefs.

To you, what was the attraction of looking at the Declaration at this moment?

對你來說，在這個時刻看《獨立宣言》的吸引力是什麼？

Well, as you said, it's our 250th and as you certainly know, and

嗯，就像你說的，今年是我們建國 250 週年，而且你肯定知道，

you've written about the rise of populism not too long ago, we're in no mood to celebrate a birthday party.

你不久前也寫過民粹主義的興起，我們現在可沒心情慶祝生日派對。

It's like Thanksgiving or whatever, we have to all come together.

就像感恩節或什麼的，我們得聚在一起。

Well, I figured, how can we do what we did in 1976 when after Watergate, Vietnam and the riots, we had a bicentennial?

嗯，我想，我們該怎麼做才能重現 1976 年的情況？當時經歷了水門案、越戰和暴動後，我們辦了建國兩百週年慶。

Well, maybe if we all reflect on the mission statement of our country, which most of us can subscribe to as an aspirational thing, not something we've achieved or they achieve, but

嗯，也許如果我們都反思一下國家的使命宣言，大多數人都能認同這是一個值得追求的目標，而不是我們已經達成或他們已經達成的，但是

Then maybe some of the poison in our politics could be sapped out.

這樣或許就能讓政治中的一些毒素被清除。

When you look at how they did the Declaration, you have all sorts of people with different perspectives, some who are slave owners, some who are abolitionists, and

當你看看他們是如何起草《獨立宣言》的，你會發現有各種不同觀點的人，有些是奴隸主，有些是廢奴主義者，而且

yet they come together to say, this is a mission statement that can live and breathe.

他們還是能凝聚在一起說，這是一份能夠生生不息的使命宣言。

When Jefferson takes Locke's idea of life, liberty, estates and property, and turns it into life, liberty, and

當傑佛遜將洛克的「生命、自由、財產」的概念，轉化為「生命、自由，以及

the pursuit of happiness, it's a breathing phrase that sets the stage for the American dream.

追求幸福」，這是一個充滿活力的詞句，為美國夢奠定了基礎。

So I think we can all talk about that for a minute, because that's so interesting.

所以我認為我們可以稍微討論一下這個，因為這真的很有趣。

So John Locke says life, liberty, and property, and then Jefferson, in the Virginia statute says property, right?

所以約翰·洛克說「生命、自由和財產」，然後傑佛遜在維吉尼亞法案中說的是「財產」，對吧？

Well, George Mason does most of the writing of the Virginia statute, but you're absolutely right.

嗯，維吉尼亞法案大多是喬治·梅森寫的，但你說得完全正確。

It says property and happiness, or just property.

上面寫的是財產和幸福，還是隻有財產？

Do we know what Jefferson was thinking when he enlisted?

我們知道傑佛遜在起草時在想什麼嗎？

Happiness wasn't just, okay, let's have fun and parties.

幸福不只是「好啦，來玩得開心、開派對」。

It was a pursuit of your own fulfillment.

And he had read, you know, Voltaire, Rousseau's De Social Contract.

他讀過，你知道的，伏爾泰、盧梭的《社會契約論》。