Loading

参议员乔什•霍利:为什么我反对选举人团投票 【中英对照翻译】

新闻来源:COLUMBIA DAILY TRIBUNE《哥伦比亚每日论坛报》; 作者:Josh Hawley; 发布时间:January 12, 2021 /2021年1月12日

翻译/简评:Dreamer文童;校对/审核:freedust;Page:小雨

简评:

1月6日,美国国会联席会议对备受质疑的选举人团投票进行了认证,乔•拜登成为法律意义上的当选总统。会议期间,包括参议员乔什•霍利在内的六名议员提出了反对意见,挑战非法选举。宪法律师出身的霍利议员表达了反对的原因,其中最主要的一点是某些州的投票程序违反本州的宪法规定,不应当计算在内。霍利还指出,不管是根据法律规定,还是国会联席会议以往先例(民主党人曾三次提出反对),他都有权利提出反对。然而,民主党人之前提出反对时的回应是被赞扬,而此次他提出反对,却被指责为煽动暴力。这种双重标准似乎与中共的一贯做法有些相似。

美国之所以伟大,最主要的原因之一就是法治基石,这不仅包括完善的法律体系和独立的司法,还包括普通民众法律意识的普及。此次美国大选存在严重舞弊,上至美国总统,下至普通民众(不包括安提法),都希望或者通过法律途径解决舞弊行为。川普总统提起的民事诉讼,和国会联席会议的认证,都是依据法律规定的程序而进行的。正是像霍利议员这样的法律人士坚持对法律的信仰和依法行事,所以无论中共对美国的渗透多严重,都无法彻底毁坏法治的基石。美国一定能再次伟大!

原文翻译:

Sen. Josh Hawley: Why I objected to the electoral vote

参议员乔什•霍利:为什么我反对选举人团投票

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., speaks during a confirmation hearing Oct. 12 for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. (Susan Walsh, The Associated Press )

10月12日,参议员乔什•霍利(Josh Hawley,密苏里州共和党人)在最高法院提名人艾米•科尼•巴雷特(Amy Coney Barrett)的确认听证会上发言。(Susan Walsh, 美联社)

Last week I objected during the Joint Session count of electoral votes in order to have a debate on the issue of election integrity. My objection proceeded according to the letter of the statute, which specifically permits for objections and debate, and followed the traditions of Congress.

上周,我在联席会议计算选举人团票时提出反对意见,为了就选举诚信问题进行辩论。我的反对意见是根据法规条文提出的,该法规特别允许提出反对意见和进行辩论,并遵循国会的传统。

In fact, dozens of Democratic members of Congress have lodged objections in precisely the same forum over the last three decades. To be specific, Democrats objected after the elections of 2000, 2004, and 2016 — in other words, every time a Republican has won the White House in the last 30 years. And they were within their rights to do so. The Joint Session is the forum where concerns about an election can be raised, debated, and ultimately resolved with a vote.

事实上,在过去30年,数十名民主党国会议员正是在相同的讨论会上提出反对意见。具体来说,民主党人在2000年、2004年和2016年大选后都提出了反对意见 – 换言之,在过去30年,每次共和党人赢得白宫时,民主党人都会提出反对意见。并且他们是在其权利范围内做这样的事情。联席会议是一个讨论会,人们可以在这个讨论会上提出对选举的担忧,进行辩论,并最终通过投票解决。

The difference between those past instances and this year, however, is striking. In the past, when Democrats objected, they were praised for standing up for democracy. In 2005, when Democrats objected to counting Ohio’s electoral votes, Nancy Pelosi praised the objections, saying, “This debate is fundamental to our democracy” and “we are witnessing democracy at work.”

然而,过去那些先例与今年情况的差别是惊人的。在过去,当民主党人反对时,他们因站出来支持民主而受到赞扬。2005年,当民主党人反对计算俄亥俄州的选举人票时,南希•佩洛西(Nancy Pelosi)赞扬了反对意见,她说:“这场辩论是我们民主的根本”,并且“我们正在见证民主发挥作用”。

This time around, anyone who objected has been called an “insurrectionist.” Sadly, much of the media and many members of the Washington establishment want to deceive Americans into thinking those who raised concerns incited violence, simply by voicing the concern. That’s false. And the allegation itself is corrosive and dangerous.

此时此刻,任何反对的人都被称为“暴动者”。可悲的是,许多媒体和华盛顿建制派的许多成员想欺骗美国人,让他们认为那些提出担忧的人煽动了暴力,仅仅通过表达担忧。这是错误的。并且这种指控本身就是侵蚀性的和危险的。

Let me say again, as I have said before: the lawless violence at the Capitol last week was criminal. There can be no quibbling about that. Those who engaged in it should be prosecuted and punished. Lawless violence undermines the democratic process by which we settle our disputes and threatens our democratic life. That applies to mobs of any and all political persuasions. Mob violence is always wrong.

我再说一次,正如我之前所说:上周在国会大厦发生的不遵守法律的暴力事件是犯罪行为。这一点不容置疑。那些参与暴力的人应该受到起诉和惩罚。不遵守法律的暴力破坏了我们解决争议的民主进程,并威胁到我们的民主生活。这适用于任何和所有政治派别的暴徒。暴徒暴力永远是错误的。

But democratic debate is not mob violence. It is in fact how we avoid that violence.

但民主辩论不是暴徒暴力。这其实是我们如何避免这种暴力的方式。

Our system of government is the envy of the world in part because it contains mechanisms to give Americans of different views a voice — without resort to threats or violence or unrest of any kind. Debate on the floor of Congress, like the debate that is provided for during the counting of electoral votes, is one of these. It is a forum for registering disagreement, airing differing views, and resolving these differences peaceably. This is our proud tradition as Americans.

我们的政府体系令世界羡慕,部分原因是它包含了让持有不同观点的美国人发声的机制 - 而不用诉诸威胁或暴力或任何形式的动乱。国会的辩论,就像计算选举人团投票时的辩论那样,就是这些的其中一种。它是一个登记不同意见、表达不同观点并和平解决这些分歧的讨论会。这是我们作为美国人的骄傲传统。

Many, many citizens in Missouri have deep concerns about election integrity. For months, I heard from these Missourians — writing, calling my office, stopping me to talk. They want Congress to take action to see that our elections at every level are free, fair, and secure. They have a right to be heard in Congress. And as their representative, it is my duty to speak on their behalf. That is just what I did last week.

密苏里州的许多公民对选举诚信深感担忧。几个月来,我听到这些密苏里州人的声音 - 写信、给我的办公室打电话、拦住我谈话。他们希望国会采取行动以确保我们各级的选举是自由的、公平的和安全的。他们有权利让国会听到其发声。作为他们的代表,我有责任代表他们发言。这正是我上周所做的。

As to my specific objection: I objected with regard to Pennsylvania because the state failed to follow its own constitution. The Pennsylvania constitution has been interpreted by the state’s courts for over a century to prohibit mail-in voting, except in clearly stated circumstances. But last year, Pennsylvania politicians adopted universal mail-in voting anyway. To make matters worse, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court then changed the rules for when mail-in ballots could be returned. And when Pennsylvania citizens tried to go to court to object, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out the case on procedural grounds, in violation of its own precedent. To this day, no court has found the mail-in voting scheme to be constitutional, or even heard the merits of the case.

至于我的具体反对意见:我反对宾夕法尼亚州是因为该州没有遵守自己的宪法。一个多世纪以来,宾夕法尼亚州宪法一直被该州法院解释为禁止邮寄投票,除非有明确规定的情况。但去年,宾夕法尼亚州的政客们还是采用全民邮寄投票。更糟糕的是,宾夕法尼亚州最高法院随即修改了邮寄选票可以被退回的规定。并且当宾夕法尼亚州公民试图到法庭提出反对时,宾夕法尼亚州最高法院却以程序为由将此案驳回,这种做法违反了该法院的先例。时至今日,没有一家法院认定邮寄投票方案符合宪法,甚至没有审理此案的实质问题。

I also objected to point out the unprecedented interference of the Big Tech corporations in this election in favor of the Biden campaign, not just in Pennsylvania but everywhere. Their interference in our democratic process has only accelerated in recent days.

我还反对指出,大科技公司在此次选举中进行前所未有的干预以支持拜登的竞选活动,不仅在宾夕法尼亚州,而在各地都是如此。他们对我们民主进程的干预最近几天才加快。

Some wondered why I stuck with my objection following the violence at the Capitol. The reason is simple: I will not bow to a lawless mob, or allow criminals to drown out the legitimate concerns of my constituents.

有些人想知道,在国会大厦暴力事件后,我为什么坚持我的反对意见。原因很简单:我不会屈服于不遵守法律的暴徒,也不允许犯罪分子淹没我的选民的合法担忧。

I am proud to represent you in Congress. Your voice helps make this country and our democracy strong. These are difficult days for our country. All I can promise you is that I will do my best, day in and day out, to represent your voice, no matter who criticizes me. And I will do my utmost to preserve, protect and defend this republic that we call home.

我很自豪能在国会代表你们。你们的声音有助于使这个国家和我们的民主变得强大。现在是我们国家的困难时期。我可以向你们承诺的是,我会尽我最大的努力,日复一日,代表你们的声音,无论谁批评我。并且我将竭尽全力维护、保护和捍卫这个我们称之为家园的共和国。

Josh Hawley represents Missouri in the United States Senate.

乔什•霍利在美国参议院代表密苏里州。

编辑:【英国伦敦喜庄园编辑部】Edited by:【Himalaya London Club UK】