美國政治如何約束商人總統
The law is totally on my side ...
法律完全站在我這邊。
the president can’t have a conflict of interest.
總統不能有利益衝突。
Donald Trump’s comment, in an interview last week, will not reassure Americans worried about having a president who also owns a big global business.
唐納德.特朗普(Donald Trump)上週接受採訪時發表的言論，無法打消美國人對於選出一位擁有大型跨國企業的總統的擔憂。
The echo of an earlier assertion of presidential prerogative — Richard Nixon’s claim that when the president does it, that means it is not illegal — was impossible to miss.
這讓人不由得回想起理查德.尼克松(Richard Nixon)關於總統特權的論斷：總統做一件事，就意味着這件事不是非法的。
The parallel is imperfect.
這種類比並不十分準確。
Nixon was looking back at his presidency, and referring to national security issues specifically.
尼克松說這話時是在回顧他的總統任期，並且特指國家安全問題。
And Mr Trump’s comment is, unlike Nixon’s, true — in one important sense.
還有，不同於尼克松，特朗普這句話是正確的——從一個重要的層面來說。
The rules forbidding officials’ involvement in matters where they have a financial interest do not apply to the president.
有關官員不得參與本人在其中擁有經濟利益的事務的規則並不適用於總統。
The law reflects the great reach of the office under the constitution.
這條法律反映總統在憲法下擁有的巨大職權。
Avoiding all conflicts would make the job impossible.
如果要避免一切衝突，這總統就沒法當了。
That does not mean that Mr Trump can mix the nation’s business and his own without restraint.
這並不意味着特朗普可以毫無限制地把國家事務與個人事務混爲一談。
There is, to start, a distinction between what the law requires and what a leader should do.
首先，法律規定的責任和領導人應該做的事之間是有區別的。
Flouting ethical standards corrodes the ability to govern, as President Bill Clinton, for example, discovered.
藐視道德標準會損害執政能力，正如前總統比爾.克林頓(Bill Clinton)所發現的那樣。
Mr Trump has already pushed limits.
特朗普已經挑戰了界限。
Breaking with the decades-old and honourable practice of releasing tax returns was the first step.
第一步是打破了一項延續幾十年、值得尊重的慣例——公開納稅申報單。
The idea that giving his children control of his business does anything to reduce potential conflicts is risible.
認爲把企業管理權交給子女就能減少潛在利益衝突的觀點十分可笑。
This was underlined when his daughter Ivanka attended Mr Trump’s meeting with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan.
特朗普的女兒伊萬卡(Ivanka)陪同他會晤日本首相安倍晉三(Shinzo Abe)，更是突顯了這一點。
Minimally, the president would put his businesses in the hands of an independent board; ideally, he would instruct that board to liquidate.
最起碼，總統會把自己的企業交給獨立董事會；在理想情況下，他會指示董事會將企業清盤。
Mr Trump will do neither.
特朗普兩種方式都不會選。
Since the election, Americans have been given a taste of the sticky situations the Trump administration will force them to contemplate.
自從選舉以來，美國人就體會到了情況的不妙，這是特朗普政府將迫使他們慢慢品嚐的滋味。
The president-elect has met with his Indian business partners.
這位當選總統會見了他的印度商業夥伴。
He has encouraged the interim leader of the UK Independence party, Nigel Farage, to campaign against wind farms, which he thinks blight his Scottish golf courses.
他鼓勵英國獨立黨(UKIP)過渡期領袖奈傑爾.法拉奇(Nigel Farage)發起抵制風力發電廠的活動——特朗普認爲風力發電廠妨礙了他在蘇格蘭的高爾夫球場。
Days after Mr Trump spoke to Argentina’s president, it was announced that a Trump tower project in Buenos Aires would proceed.
在特朗普與阿根廷總統通話幾天後，布宜諾斯艾利斯就宣佈推進特朗普大廈項目。
While the law protects the president on conflicts of interest narrowly understood, the constitution emphatically forbids the use of the presidency for profit.
儘管法律在狹義層面的利益衝突上保護總統，但是憲法明確禁止利用總統職權謀利。
The emolument clause forbids the president from taking anything of value from foreign powers, and the impeachment clause singles out bribery as a high crime meriting removal from office.
報酬條款禁止總統從外國勢力獲取任何有價值的東西，彈劾條款把賄賂列爲可以罷黜總統的重罪。
But Mr Trump’s supporters need not worry, and his opponents should not hope, that he will cross a bright line, promptly triggering an impeachment vote in the House of Representatives and a trial in the Senate.
但是特朗普的支持者不必擔心他會跨越明顯的界限、立即觸發衆議院的彈劾投票和參議院的審判，他的反對者也不應該抱着這種指望。
Mr Trump is no fool and there is room for years of legal wrangling over the constitution’s broad language about executive power.
特朗普不是傻子，而且圍繞憲法對行政權力的寬泛解釋還可以展開歷時多年的法律爭執。
What will restrain Mr Trump is Congress.
能夠約束住特朗普的是國會。
When he crosses boundaries, it can replace co-operation with investigation, especially in the finely balanced Senate.
一旦他跨過界限，國會可以不再採取合作態度，而是展開調查，特別是在兩黨勢力接近的參議院。
Both parties will have to be at their best.
兩黨都不得不拿出最佳狀態。
Democrats must not turn the fact that Mr Trump’s businesses will profit from his office into an excuse for obstructing the basic business of government.
民主黨人不能以特朗普的企業受益於總統權力爲藉口，阻礙政府行使基本職能。
And Republicans must follow conscience, not party allegiance.
而共和黨人必須憑良知行事，不能死忠於本黨。
Executive power and privilege have caused controversy since the constitution was drafted.
自美國憲法起草以來，有關行政權力和特權的話題一直存在爭議。
Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court; George W Bush asserted broad executive security powers after 9/11.
富蘭克林.羅斯福(Franklin Roosevelt)試圖在最高法院安插親信；小布什(George W Bush)在9.11事件後主張在安全事務上總統有廣泛行政權力。
In those cases and more, the other branches of government refused to be pushed aside.
在上述情況（以及更多情況）下，政府的其他分支部門拒絕被排擠在外。
May that tradition continue.
希望這種傳統可以延續下去。
