CNN News:高院裁定長達50年之久的《投票權法案》關鍵部分違憲

This is CNN Radio.

這里是CNN廣播。

Now it's a fight for freedom.

現(xiàn)在這是為自由而進行的戰(zhàn)斗。

And I did not have grandchildren of mine;

而且我自己沒有孫子,

I had a grandmother of mine.

但我有自己的祖母。

I wanted her, after having lived all these years,

我需要她,在經(jīng)歷了這么多年,

to have at least the final years, where she could be treated with dignity and respect.

為了至少在最后的幾年,她能夠獲得尊嚴及尊重。

Banarr Lafayette wasn't just fighting for the future.

巴納爾·拉法迪不只是為未來而戰(zhàn)。

He was fighting for the past.

他也為過去而戰(zhàn)。

Lafayette was one of the thousands of men and women who rallied together to help pressurethe government to pass the 1965 voting rights act.

拉法迪是聚集在一起對政府施壓通過1965年投票權法的成千上萬男女其中的一人。

I'm Tommy Andres.

我是湯米·安德烈斯。

Welcome to CNN Radio News Day.

歡迎收聽今天的CNN新聞廣播。

Nearly 50 years after the passage of this ground-breaking civil rights legislation , we hear the stories of two of the men whose names will forever be tied to in the history books.

在這一開創(chuàng)性的打破民權的立法被通過近50年后,我們因為它聽到來自兩個男人的故事,而他們的名字將永遠載入史冊。

And what it means - to have a change.

這意味著什么—有一次變革即將到來。

We've seen the Martin King, one of the most brilliant men, and one of the greatest men of this country,

我們已經(jīng)見識過過馬丁·路德·金,他是這個國家最杰出及最偉大的人物之一,

but this society hasn't change enough to truly accept what he fought for.

但是這個社會沒有足以改變到真正接受他所為之奮斗的東西。

Only the victims have a right to say that things have changed enough to get rid of it.

只有受害者有權事情已經(jīng)改變足以擺脫它。

President Johnson sends to Congress a bill to reinforce the right to vote.

而約翰遜總統(tǒng)寄給國會投票加強投票的權利。

But Attorney General Nicholas cuts in back.

但總檢察長尼古拉斯將其駁回。

The president signs in an accompanying letter to the legislators, urging swift passage for the bill that will outlaw the discriminatory practices.

總統(tǒng)隨后在給議員們的一封附函中簽字呼吁迅速通過禁止性別歧視的法案。

Then the Attorney General briefed the press on the second features of the bill.

然后檢察長向新聞界簡述法案的第二特征。

It will give his office the power to appoint Federal registers in six southern states, whereliteracy and other boarder qualification tests are required.

這將賦予他的辦公室權力任命在六個南部州要求文化及其它更廣泛資格測試的聯(lián)邦登記人員。

Times have changed.

時代已經(jīng)變了。

You can hear in this sort of news clips about the signing of the 1965 voting rights act.

你可以聽到關于簽署1965年投票權法案這樣的新聞視頻。

And today the Supreme Court ruled that the change has been big enough to move away from that law.

而今天美國最高法院裁定改革已經(jīng)大到足以不受律法束縛。

The voting rights act that passed nearly 50 years ago required nine states and serveral counties, whether with a history of racism, to get any changes to their voting laws approved by the US government,

近50年前通過的投票權法案需要9個州和幾個縣,無論是否帶有歷史種族主義,都要按照美國政府所批準的改變他們的投票法律,

in short, that'll oversight elections.

簡而言之,選舉將受到監(jiān)督。

Now the Supreme Court didn't strike down the heart of the law, and on paper, that'll oversight remains, that's called Section 5.

現(xiàn)在最高法院沒有觸動法律的核心,而且談到法律監(jiān)管依然存在,這就是第5節(jié)中提到的。

But the court ruled a different section, Section 4, is unconstitutional.

但法院裁定的是一個不同的部分,那就是第4部分違憲。

That's the section that names the states' and counties' cupboard by the law.

這個部分給出了由法律規(guī)定的各州、縣的名字。

But CNN's legal analyst Jeffery Tuben says, the law is pretty much powerless now.

但是CNN的法律分析師杰弗里·圖本稱現(xiàn)在的法律也是無能為力。

What that means in practice, is that the other part of the law.

在實際執(zhí)行中意味著什么,是法律的另一部分。

Section 5, which says those states have to be in supervision, that is dormant.

第5節(jié)稱這些州必須處于監(jiān)管當中,這是潛在的問題。

That doesn't matter anymore until and unless Congress goes back and comes up with a modern formula.

這無關緊要,除非國會重新想出一個符合現(xiàn)代法律的解決辦法。

So as Tuben says, it's now up to Congress to figure out whether or not the formula should be rewritten.

所以作為圖本稱現(xiàn)在國會應該決定是否法律應該重寫。

And today Wolf Blitzer joined the course of CNN analyst who said that probably won't happen.

而今天沃爾夫·布里茨加入到CNN分析師的行列,他表示這不可能會發(fā)生。

Politically, I think, it's unlikely that given the current makeup of the House of Representatives,

我認為政治上這不太可能,鑒于目前眾議院的構造,

for example, it's very unlikely they will go ahead and reinstate some of these provisions from the 1965 voting rights act that were struck down.

例如,他們不可能將繼續(xù)恢復從1965年投票權法案被否決的其中一些規(guī)定。
譯文來源https://www.kekenet.com/