VOA慢速英语听力2013年01月（WORD文本）：AMERICAN-HISTORY-DEBATING-THE-PART-OF-SLAVES-UNDER-A-NEW-CONSTITUTION.doc

1、高考资源网（） 您身边的高考专家American History: Debating the Part of Slaves Under a New ConstitutionFrom VOA Learning English, welcome to THE MAKING OF A NATION American history in Special English. Im Steve Ember. This week in our series, we continue the story of the United States Constitution.In May of 1787, a g

2、roup of Americas early leaders met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to amend the Articles of Confederation. That document established a loose union of the 13 states. Instead, the leaders wrote a completely new constitution. They created Americas system of government and recognized the rights of its cit

3、izens.Last week, we discussed the way the delegates agreed that states would be represented in the national government.There would be two houses in the legislature. In one house - the House of Representatives - the number of representatives from each state would depend on the states population. In t

4、he other house - the Senate - all states would have an equal number of representatives.The agreement on representation was known as the Great Compromise. Not all the delegates in Philadelphia were pleased with it. But it saved the convention from failure.The debate on representation in the House rai

5、sed an important issue. No one wanted to talk about it. But all the delegates knew they had to discuss it. The issue was slavery. There were thousands of slaves in the United States in 1787. Most of them were in southern states. But there were many slaves in the north, too. And northern ship owners

6、made a lot of money by importing slaves from Africa.A modern-day Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas, came from a family whose ancestors included slaves. Justice Thomas says slavery made no sense in America.How can you have a free country with slaves? We understood that. Its a contradiction it co

7、ntradicts the very founding premise of the country.The Articles of Confederation said nothing about slavery. Each state could decide to allow it or not. Massachusetts, for example, made slavery illegal. Nine other states stopped importing new slaves. Only three states - Georgia, North Carolina, and

8、South Carolina - continued to import slaves.The issue was never easy to discuss. Some of the most important men in America - including George Washington and James Madison - owned slaves. No one wanted to insult these men. Yet the delegates at the convention had to make some decisions about slavery.S

9、lavery affected laws on trade and taxes, as well as the question of representation in Congress. If the number of representatives in the House was based on a states population, who would you count? Would you count just free people? Or would you count slaves, too?Akhil Reed Amar, a professor of law an

10、d political science at Yale University, calls slavery the original sin of Americas founders.They inherited it, to be sure, and they worried about it, but not enough.During the debate, some delegates argued that slaves were property and should not be counted for purposes of representation. Others arg

11、ued that slaves were people and should be counted with everyone else.Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania made an angry speech. He denounced slavery as an evil institution.Charles Pinckney of South Carolina defended the existence of slavery in the United States. In all ages, he said, one half of mankin

12、d have been slaves.George Mason of Virginia, a slave owner, wanted to free all slaves. He said Virginia attempted to do that when it was a British colony, but that the British government refused. He blamed the problem on British businessmen who made money from slavery.Other delegates rose to denounc

13、e or defend slavery. But no one at the convention had the power to rule on whether slavery was right or wrong.Everyone knew the convention would fail if they tried to write a constitution that banned slavery. The southern states would never accept it. They would refuse to be part of the United State

14、s.Rufus King of Massachusetts said the convention should consider slavery only as a political matter. And that was what happened. The delegates accepted several political compromises on the issue.James Wilson of Pennsylvania, for example, proposed a method of counting each states population for purp

15、oses of representation. All white people and other free citizens would be counted as one person each. Every five slaves would be counted only as three people. This was called the three-fifths rule. The delegates accepted it.The word slave was never used in the Constitution. The document simply used

16、the words all other persons. The three-fifths rule remained the law until the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution came into effect in 1868.Alexander Hamilton said the three-fifths compromise was necessary. Without it, he said, no union could possibly have been formed.Slavery also became an issu

17、e when the delegates began discussing the powers of the national legislature. Once again, the delegates asked: Are slaves people? Or are they property? The answer would affect import taxes and the growth of new states.The delegates accepted several compromises on these questions, too. They agreed th

18、at the treasury could collect a tax of $10 for every imported slave. They also agreed that slaves could be imported until 1808. Then no new slaves could be brought into the country.Until then, each state had the power to make its own decisions about slavery. After 1808, the national government would

19、 make all the decisions.Constitutional law professor Akhil Reed Amar says that agreement is where the delegates went wrong.What was the founders biggest mistake? Not that they didnt get rid of slavery immediately. It was already a part of their world. It would have been difficult to get rid of slave

20、ry immediately. But what they didnt do is come up with a long-term plan to get rid of slavery eventually.Debate on the constitution continued through the summer of 1787. At the same time, some of the delegates raised an important question. Once the document was written, who would approve it?The stat

21、e legislatures? The people? Or, as Gouverneur Morris proposed, one big national convention? Elbridge Gerry opposed giving that power to the people. The people, he said, have the wildest ideas of government in the world.James Madison disagreed. He believed the people must ratify their new plan of gov

22、ernment. Madison considered the difference between a system founded on the legislatures only, and one founded on the people, to be the true difference between a league or treaty, and a Constitution.When the debate was over, the delegates agreed that the people should ratify the new constitution thro

23、ugh conventions held in each state.Justice Clarence Thomas and law professor Akhil Reed Amar have described this agreement as one of the most remarkable parts of the convention.You think of going to Washington and trying to get him to leave Mount Vernon, and he doesnt want to leave. Because hes fina

24、lly back home. Hed been away over four years, and he doesnt want to leave. And he goes to Philadelphia, and they do it. They come up with this document in, what, four months. And now you have it. Its going to the Congress, and its going to be sent to the people to . To the people.To the people, to r

25、atify.Amazing.Finally, the delegates had to decide how many yes votes by states would be needed to ratify the constitution.Any changes to the Articles of Confederation needed ratification by all 13 states. The Philadelphia convention was called only to change those articles, not to replace them. So

26、all 13 states would have to approve. But several delegates said this would be impossible. After all, Rhode Island never sent a representative to Philadelphia. That state was sure to reject the constitution.Also, as everyone knew, the Philadelphia convention went far past the point of changing the Ar

27、ticles of Confederation. The delegates wrote a completely new plan of government. But that meant they could agree to accept ratification by fewer than 13 states.Delegates who supported a strong central government wanted to quickly put the question to a vote. How many states were needed to ratify? By

28、 the end of the day, the convention had not decided. But early the next day, the delegates voted, and the number they agreed on was nine.The convention in Philadelphia was nearing the end of its work. The delegates needed only to write out their agreements in final form and sign the document. That w

29、ill be our story next week.上次我们谈到了费城制宪大会的代表们终于就总统的职能和产生达成了共识。经过几个星期的激烈辩论后，代表们决定，总统由州议会指定的选举人推举产生，总统对 立法拥有否决权，如果犯下严重罪行，也可以被弹劾。当时，“总统”这一称谓尚未出现，是我们为了叙述上的方便而采用的。制宪大会讨论的另外一个重要问题是建立一个国家司法体系，即联邦法院和法官系统。与会代表里有34名律师，八名法官，所以这个议题对他们来说并不陌生。但问题是，美国各州已经有了自己的法院和法官，有必要设置联邦法院吗？有些代表认为答案是否定的。来自康涅狄克州的罗杰谢尔曼认为，现有的州法院系统已经

30、足够了，建立联邦法院系统耗资太大。南卡罗来纳州的约翰拉特利奇反 对建立下级联邦法院系统，但主张建立联邦最高法院。制宪大会最后投票决定，建立一个联邦最高法院，同时也建立一个下级联邦法院系统，负责受理涉及联邦法 律、公民权利，以及外国人在美国犯罪的案件。业已存在的州法院体系继续受理涉及州法律的案子。接下来是任命联邦大法官的问题。有些代表认为，大法官应该由国会指定，另外一些代表却认为，大法官应该由总统任命。宾夕法尼亚州的詹姆斯威尔逊主张，大法官的人选应该由一人决定，因为经验证明，集体决策很难公开、公平。南卡罗来纳州的约翰拉特利奇极力反对。他认为，把大法官的任命权交给总统跟交给国王没什么两样。本杰明富

31、兰克林讲了一个很好笑的故事。他说，在苏格兰，法官是由律师任命的，他们总是挑选最出色的律师去当法官，然后再把他原来的客户瓜分掉。与会代表最后投票决定，先建立一个最高法院，司法系统的具体细节留待国会和总统去完成。国会可以决定最高法院大法官的人数，然后由总统任命。国会还可以建立下级法院，法官也由总统任命。1787年一夏天，费城制宪大会的代表们都在围绕维吉尼亚代表提出的政府规划方案进行讨论。不过，这份方案并不是唯一的，新泽西州的代表也带来了自己的想法。制宪大会进行到一个月的时候，新泽西州代表威廉佩特森在大会上提出了新泽西州的方案。大家一眼就看出，这份方案跟维吉尼亚的方案大相径庭。维吉尼亚的方案主张建立

32、一个联邦政府，立法、行政和司法三权分立，权力高于州政府。新泽西州的计划也主张建立一个联邦政府，但是每个州继续保持独立于联邦的权力。新泽西州的方案建议对邦联条例进行修改，但并没有提出一个全新的政治体制。根据新泽西州的方案，联邦设立一院制的立法机构，每个州，不论大小，均拥有一票。联邦政府由多人领导，权力来自各州，而不是人民，而且不设下级联邦法院。新泽西州方案的支持者指出，费城大会的目的是修改邦联条例，与会代表无权彻底废除邦联条例。其中一人说，如果邦联条例全盘错误的话，那我们就回家去，让州议会授予我们谈判的权力，但是我们不能自行其事。这时候，宾夕法尼亚州的代表詹姆斯威尔逊说话了。他指出，费城大会代表

33、们的任务不是就某件事情达成最终协议，但是可以畅所欲言，围绕任何问题进行讨论。 威尔逊还对与会代表的代表性提出了质疑。他反问道，“有时候，我们会错误地认为，自己朋友的意见就是民意，难道不是吗？”他指出，某些代表坚信民众绝对不 会接受一个联邦政府，绝对不愿意放弃各州的权力。威尔逊追问说，“联邦政府为什么肯定不受欢迎呢？是因为缺少信誉？还是因为民众享受的自由和受到的保护会 缩水？作为美国公民，难道不如作为某个州的公民受到的尊重多吗？”下面一个发言的是维吉尼亚州州长埃德蒙伦道夫。他说，费城大会除了建立一个联邦政府，别无选择。如果不采取必要措施，挽救共和体制，就是叛国，只有一个 全新的联邦政府才能挽救共

34、和。伦道夫说，“眼前是建立一个联邦政府的最后时刻，错过这个机会，人民就会彻底丧失希望。”6月16号星期六，与会代表围绕新泽西州的提案进行了讨论。接下来的星期一，他们又听取了纽约州代表亚历山大汉密尔顿的提议。那一天，一贯沉默寡言的汉密尔顿滔滔不绝地谈论了五个小时。他表示，自己的提议不是正式提案，而是对维吉尼亚方案的修正。汉密尔顿认为，美国应该只有一位领导人，由选举人推选产生，终身制，他有权否决立法，而且他的否决不能被推翻。汉密尔顿继续说，国会应该由参众两院组成， 参议员跟总统一样，也由选举人推选产生，终身制；众议员由人民直选产生，任期三年。在州的建制上，汉密尔顿主张，各州应该放弃很多现有的权力。

35、州长由联邦 政府任命，各州不得保留自己的武装部队。汉密尔顿坚信，随着美国的成长，现行政府体制是行不通的。他认为，美国应该照搬英国的体制，他称英国的体制是世界 上最棒的。汉密尔顿讲话期间，没有人打断他，也没有人提问。历史学家说，这种情况令人惊讶，因为汉密尔顿的主张非常极端，他对英国政府的公开支持也极不受欢迎，费城 大会没有任何人接受他的主张。但是当时一则天气炎热，二则汉密尔顿的讲话太长，于是会议代表们同意暂时休会，改天再议。*更多资料请访问VOA英语学习网（）*VOA慢速英语新闻听力（VOA Special English），每天更新： VOA常速英语新闻听力（VOA Standard English），每天更新： BBC英语新闻听力，每天更新： CNN英语新闻听力，每天更新： CRI英语新闻听力，每天更新： NPR英语新闻听力，每天更新： AP NEWS英语新闻听力，每天更新： 高考资源网版权所有，侵权必究！