最高法院考虑大幅扩大总统权力

我是艾拉·格拉斯。

This is Ira Glass.

在《美国生活》节目中，我们讲述关于人生转折的故事，就像这位大卫，他的整个生活突然发生了意想不到且非常不愉快的转变。

On This American Life, we tell stories about when things change, like for this guy David, whose entire life took a sharp, unexpected, and very unpleasant turn.

我确实花了一段时间才意识到，这基本上是因为猴子按下了按钮。

And it did take me a while to realize it's basically because the monkey pressed the button.

没错。

That's right.

就因为猴子按下了按钮。

Because the monkey pressed the button.

每周都有意想不到的故事，在您收听播客的任何地方。

Surprising stories every week wherever you get your podcasts.

嗨。

Hi.

我是切尔西。

This Chelsea.

这位是杰里米。

And this is Jeremy.

我们来自宾夕法尼亚州的普利茅斯会合镇。

And we're from Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania.

在新生儿重症监护室待了近一百天后，我们正要去接儿子回家。

After nearly a hundred days in the NICU, we're on our way to go pick up our son and bring him home.

哇。

Wow.

本播客录制于

This podcast was recorded at

东部时间12月10日星期三下午1点36分。

01:36PM eastern time on Wednesday, December 10.

当你听到这段录音时情况可能已有变化，但我们终于能让三个孩子都回到家中团聚了。

Things may have changed by the time you hear this, but we will finally have all three of our children at home with us.

请享受节目。

Enjoy the show.

哇。

Wow.

一百天啊。

A hundred days.

是啊。

Yeah.

真是松了一口气。

What a relief.

恭喜你们。

Congratulations.

大家好。

Hey there.

这里是NPR政治播客。

It's the NPR politics podcast.

我是莎拉·麦卡蒙。

I'm Sarah McCammon.

我负责报道政治新闻。

I cover politics.

我是玛拉·利亚森，高级国家政治记者。

And I'm Mara Liasson, senior national political correspondent.

今天我们还有NPR的安德莉亚·舒一同参与节目。

And we also have NPR's Andrea Shu with us today.

欢迎回来，安德莉亚。

Welcome back, Andrea.

谢谢邀请。

Thanks for having me.

今天节目中，最高法院正在审议特朗普总统是否有广泛权力无故解雇独立机构负责人。

And today on the show, the supreme court is considering whether president Trump has broad authority to fire independent agency heads without cause.

安德莉亚，你一直在跟进这个案子。

Andrea, you've been following this case.

这个案子是由一位名叫丽贝卡·斯劳特的女性提起的。

It was brought by a woman named Rebecca Slaughter.

丽贝卡·斯劳特是谁？她在主张什么？

Who is Rebecca Slaughter, and what is she arguing?

是的。

Yeah.

她曾是联邦贸易委员会的委员，实际上她是2018年特朗普总统提名的民主党席位人选，后来又被拜登前总统重新提名。

So she was a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission, and, actually, she was president Trump's pick to fill a democratic seat back in 2018, and then she was renominated by former president Biden.

她本应任职至2029年，但特朗普总统在3月份解雇了她。

And she was supposed to serve until 2029, but then president Trump fired her in the March.

特朗普告诉她，她的继续任职将与其施政重点不符，而她以该解雇行为违法为由提起诉讼。

He told her her continued service would be inconsistent with his priorities, and she sued saying that was illegal.

她指出国会创建联邦贸易委员会时明确规定，委员只能因玩忽职守或渎职等正当理由被解雇。

She pointed out that when congress created the FTC, it said that commissioners could only be fired for cause for things like neglect of duty and malfeasance.

而行政部门并未声称本案中存在玩忽职守行为。

And the administration isn't saying that there was some neglect of duty in this case.

没错。

That's right.

总统没有给出任何此类理由。

The president didn't give her any such reason.

那么特朗普政府在此案中的论点是什么？

So what is the Trump administration's argument in this case?

简而言之，他们认为国会本就不该对总统罢免像丽贝卡·斯劳特这类官员的权力加以限制，所有行政权力都应归属于总统。

In a nutshell, that congress never should have put restrictions on the president's power to remove officials like Rebecca Slaughter, that all executive power rests with the president.

他们声称，这正是开国元勋们的本意，也是他们对宪法的解读。

That's what the founders wanted, they say, and that's how they read the constitution.

以下是他们的解释方式。

And here's how they explain it.

他们说，要知道，人民选举了总统，但他只是一个人，无法事事亲力亲为。

They say, you know, the people elected the president, but he is just one person, so he can't do everything himself.

因此他将行政权力委托给协助他履行职责的其他人。

So he delegates his executive power to others who help him with his duties.

如果这些人拒绝帮助他实现愿景，那么他必须有权罢免他们，否则他如何兑现对人民的承诺？

And if they refuse to help him carry out his vision, then he must be able to remove them because, otherwise, how can he accomplish the things that he promised to the people?

要知道，责任最终由他承担。

You know, the buck stops with him.

这就是政府的论点。

That's the administration's argument.

这个案件最有趣的地方在于，它涉及一个非常重大的问题，而且这个问题在特朗普之前就存在了。

You know, what's so interesting about this case is this is about something very big, and it's something that predates Donald Trump.

长期以来，保守派人士，尤其是当今最高法院中的许多人，都信奉所谓的'单一行政理论'，认为总统应该以牺牲国会为代价获得权力，全面掌控行政部门。

And for a very long time, conservatives, especially a lot of them who are on the supreme court today, believe in something called the unitary executive theory that the president should have powers at the expense of congress, to control everything in the executive branch.

我们确实正在亲眼目睹政府体制的变化，这种变化正在以牺牲国会为代价使行政部门变得更加强大。

And we really are undergoing a change in our system of government before our very eyes that is making the executive branch more powerful at the expense of congress.

在这个案例中，国会创建了这些机构，并赋予它们一定程度的独立性。

In this case, congress created these agencies, gave them a certain amount of independence.

他们原本认为这样可以更好地保护这些机构免受政治影响，但保守派认为这是错误的，民主制度的护栏正在被单一行政理论所摧毁。

They thought that would be better to shield them from political influence, But conservatives think that's just wrong, and that guardrail of democracy is being demolished by the unitary executive theory.

这也意味着作为另一道护栏的职业公务员制度同样正在被摧毁，因为如果总统可以解雇这些机构的负责人，他当然也可以解雇其中所有的工作人员。

And, also, what that means is that the professional civil service, which is also a guardrail, is also being demolished because if the president can fire the heads of these agencies, he certainly can fire all the people who work in them.

是的。

Yeah.

我想再多谈谈这些机构的作用。

And I wanna talk a little bit more about what these agencies do.

正如你提到的Mara，这个案件涉及国会创建的机构和委员会，它们在一定程度上独立于政治。

This case is about agencies and boards, as you noted, Mara, created by congress to be somewhat independent from politics.

Andrea，我们具体在讨论哪些机构？它们为什么重要？

Andrea, what kinds of agencies are we talking about, and why are they important?

好的。

Yeah.

让我们从联邦贸易委员会开始说起。

Well, let's start with the Federal Trade Commission.

国会授权联邦贸易委员会保护美国消费者和企业免受不正当竞争的侵害。

You know, congress tasked the FTC with protecting American consumers and businesses from unfair competitions.

因此其委员们负责监督对大公司（包括亚马逊和X等大型科技公司）商业行为的调查。

So its commissioners oversee, you know, investigations into the practices of big companies, including big tech companies like Amazon and X.

他们可以制定规则并处以罚款。

They can make rules and issue fines.

还有消费者产品安全委员会，其职责是保护美国人免受缺陷产品和不安全产品的危害。

And then there's the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is supposed to protect Americans from faulty products and unsafe products.

他们会发布召回令。

You know, they issue recalls.

此外还有几个独立机构负责执行劳动法，确保工人获得正当程序。

And then there are also a couple independent agencies that enforce labor laws and ensure that workers get due process.

这些机构包括国家劳动关系委员会和功绩制保护委员会。

These are, you know, the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

这样的独立机构有几十个。

There's a couple dozen of these independent agencies.

那么安德莉亚，你认为这是否预示着我们将回归到150多年前那种政府职位作为政治恩赐而非授予专家和专业人士的体制？

And, Andrea, do you think that this is signaling a return to the kind of system we had, like, over a hundred and fifty years ago where government jobs were handed out as patronage, not to experts and professionals.

这是事态发展的方向吗？

Is that where this is going?

这正是许多批评本届政府的人所担忧的。

This is what a lot of critics of the administration are concerned about.

而且，你知道，很多人是这样向我解释的。

And, you know, I've I've had a lot of people explain it to me this way.

要知道，我们当初摒弃恩惠制度，就是为了确保民众能获得最佳服务。

You know, there was a shift away from the patronage system in order to ensure that the people got the best services.

而最佳服务应当由那些因其技能和专业知识被聘用的人提供，而不是根据他们投票支持了谁。

And the best services would be provided by people who were hired for their skills, for their expertise, not based on who they voted for.

人们会举这样的例子：你希望空中交通管制员或食品安全检查员是因为他们的技能被聘用，还是因为他们支持总统？

And people raise examples like, do you want your air traffic controllers or your food safety inspectors to be hired because of their skills or because they support the president?

那么在更近的历史中，特朗普政府对这类独立机构的态度与往届总统相比如何？

So in more recent history, I mean, how does the Trump administration's approach to these independent agencies compare with that of past presidents?

其他总统是否也认为自己有权解雇机构负责人？

Have have other presidents decided that they had this kind of latitude to fire agency heads?

没有其他总统像特朗普政府这样想要摧毁行政体系。

No other president has wanted to destroy the administrative state in the way that the Trump administration does.

其他总统或许对这些独立机构负责人感到不满，但从未有人试图解雇数万名公务员，声称他们可以无故撤换机构负责人，仅仅因为——正如特朗普政府所言——这些人与政府的优先事项不一致。

Other presidents might have been frustrated by some of these independent agency heads, but nobody has ever tried to fire tens of thousands of civil servants, say that they can fire, heads of agencies not for cause, but just because as the Trump administration has said, they don't align with the administration's priorities.

真正耐人寻味的是，最高法院——安德莉亚可以纠正我的说法——他们似乎准备推翻这位总统的决策，准备站在政府这边。

And what's really interesting about this is that the Supreme Court, and Andrea can correct me here, it sounds like they are ready to overturn this president, that they are ready to side with the administration.

他们在拜登执政时期并未表现出这种倾向。

They weren't ready during the Biden administration.

他们屡次在疫苗强制令、学生贷款减免等问题上做出不利于拜登的裁决。

They ruled against Biden time and time again on the vaccine mandates, on student loan forgiveness.

当特朗普试图扩大行政权力时，最高法院曾做出不利于他的裁决，但在涉及特朗普本人时，法院似乎更倾向于扩大行政权力。

They ruled against him when he tried to expand the powers of the executive, but they seem much more willing to expand the powers of the executive when it has to do with Donald Trump.

安德莉亚，你当时在最高法院聆听了这些辩论。

I mean, Andrea, you've you were listening to these arguments before the supreme court.

你注意到了什么？

What did you notice?

最让我印象深刻的是，双方对于建国先贤创建三权分立政府时的初衷存在根本分歧。

The thing that really stood out to me is that the two sides disagree fundamentally on what the founders envisioned when creating the three branches of government.

正如玛拉所说，政府主张建立一个权力更为集中的行政部门，所有权力都归属于总统一人。

You know, the administration, as Mara says, argues for a far more powerful executive branch with all of the power vested in the president and him alone.

他们辩称国会通过这些独立机构正在侵蚀总统的权力。

And they argued that Congress is encroaching on that power with these independent agencies.

几位保守派大法官似乎对国会目前拥有的这种权力深感忧虑。

Several of the conservative justices seemed really worried about this power that Congress has now.

包括卡瓦诺大法官在内的多位大法官都就此提出了质疑。

Several of the justices asked questions about this, including justice Kavanaugh.

让我们来听听。

Let's listen.

国会是否可以将所有这些部门——商务部、环保署、国土安全部、国务院——都转变为多成员委员会，并规定只能基于特定原因才能解除其职务？

Could could congress, convert all these departments into multi member commissions, the commerce, EPA, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, convert them all into multi member commissions and make them removable only for cause.

另一方代表被解职的联邦贸易委员会专员的律师则辩称，独立机构自共和国成立之初就有深厚历史和传统，国会显然认为不受政治和总统控制的机构能更好地服务人民。

Now the other side, the attorney representing, the fired FTC commissioner argued that there's a rich history and tradition of independent agencies from the start of the republic, and that clearly Congress thought that the people would be better served by agencies that are free from politics and free from presidential control.

索托马约尔大法官对特朗普政府要求法院采取的行动表示高度警觉。

Justice Sotomayor sounded really alarmed by what the Trump administration has asked the court to do.

你们要求我们摧毁政府架构，剥夺国会保护其理念的能力，即认为政府由一些独立机构组成会运作得更好。

You're asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent.

所以你们听到卡瓦诺大法官在那里表达了对国会实质上越权的担忧。

So you heard justice Kavanaugh there concerned about, you know, the congress essentially overreaching.

其他人则对行政越权感到担忧。

Others are concerned about executive overreach.

我是说，法院过去对于这类独立机构相关的行政权力限制是怎么说的？

I mean, what has the court said in the past about the limits of executive power when it comes to these kinds of independent agencies?

是的。

Yeah.

今年被反复引用的著名判例是汉弗莱执行人案。

Well, the famous decision that has been quoted repeatedly this year is called Humphrey's executor.

要知道，在那个1935年的案件中，最高法院一致裁定国会可以限制总统撤换联邦贸易委员会官员的权力。

You know, in that case, from 1935, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Congress could limit the president's power to remove officers of the Federal Trade Commission.

这正是特朗普政府现在要求法院推翻的先例。

This is the precedent that the Trump administration has now asked the court to overturn.

近年来，最高法院已经逐步削弱了1935年的这项裁决，例如裁定它不适用于仅由单人领导而非委员会或董事会管理的独立机构。

And already in recent years, the court has chipped away at that 1935 decision, saying, for example, it doesn't apply to independent agencies that only have one person at the head rather than a board or a commission.

今年，最高法院发布了一项影子案卷命令，其中简短提及了另一个独立机构——美联储。

And then this year, the Supreme Court issued a shadow docket order that had a very brief mention of another independent agency, the Federal Reserve.

法律学者和经济学家一直警告称，如果法院裁定总统可以解雇联邦贸易委员会委员，那么将无法阻止他解雇美联储成员，这对经济将是灾难性的。

Legal scholars and economists have been warning if the court decides the president can fire FTC commissioners, that there would be nothing to stop him from firing members of the Fed, that would be disastrous for the economy.

因此，最高法院保守派多数在影子案卷命令中的表态，某种程度上是为美联储开了个例外。

So what the conservative majority on the Supreme Court said in the shadow docket order was kind of like a carve out for the Fed.

命令称，美联储是一个结构独特的准私营实体，遵循着独特的历史传统。

It said, the Fed is a uniquely structured quasi private entity that follows in this distinct historical tradition.

所以这确实是个现实问题。

And so this is a real question.

他们是否要为美联储破例？

Are they going to make an exception for the Fed?

你认为听起来是否有些大法官确实认为不该为美联储破例？这相当耐人寻味。

Do you think it sounds like some of the justices do think there shouldn't be an exception made for the Fed, which is pretty interesting.

换句话说，他们是否担心总统（特朗普或其他总统）拥有可能损害经济的利率控制权？

In other words, are they worried about a president, Trump, or another president having the control over interest rates that could hurt the economy?

为什么美联储不被纳入并像其他机构一样对待？

Why wouldn't the Fed be included and treated just like all these other agencies?

我的意思是，确实存在担忧，你知道，在大选前夕。

I mean, absolutely, there are concerns that, you know, the run up to the election.

如果总统想提振经济，而他又能控制美联储，他可能会下令美联储降低利率。

If the president wants to boost the economy, he could order if he had control over the Fed, he could order the Fed to lower interest rates.

我是说，很多人担心这只会破坏国家经济。

I mean, there's a lot of concerns that that would just undermine the country's economy.

好的。

Alright.

我们要短暂休息一下。

We're going to take a quick break.

稍后继续为您带来更多内容。

We'll have more in just a moment.

在TED广播时段节目中，克里斯塔·蒂佩特二十多年来一直帮助听众应对变化。

On the TED Radio Hour, for over two decades, Krista Tippett has been helping her listeners get through change.

但当她经历自己的人生危机时，意外发生了。

But she was going through her own life crisis when something unexpected happened.

我在64岁时坠入爱河，这是最美好的事情。

I fell in love at 64, and it's the greatest thing ever.

寻找你的幸福。

Finding your bliss.

请在NPR应用或任何你获取播客的地方收听TED广播时段节目。

Listen to the TED Radio Hour on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.

是我的错觉，还是你也觉得现在的婚礼有点失控了？

Is it just me, or do you think that weddings are getting a little out of control?

我采访过一位当过13次伴娘的女性。

I interviewed a woman who had been a bridesmaid in 13 weddings.

她花了太多钱，信用卡负债累累，等到她自己要说'我愿意'时，他们选择了私奔。

She had spent so much money and gotten into so much credit card debt that when it was her turn to say I do, they eloped.

一场婚礼究竟值多少钱？

How much is a wedding actually worth?

在NPR应用或您获取播客的任何平台收听《It's Been a Minute》播客。

Listen to the It's Been a Minute podcast on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.

在NPR的wildcard播客中，杰米·李·柯蒂斯谈到好莱坞掩盖衰老的压力。

On NPR's wildcard podcast, Jamie Lee Curtis talks about Hollywood's pressure to cover up aging.

你无法隐藏真相。

You can't hide the truth.

我们就是我们本来的样子。

We are who we are.

如果这最终是我此生所能代表的全部，那么我会觉得这一生过得很有意义。

And if that's ultimately what I get to represent in this lifetime, then I will feel it was a life well lived.

在NPR应用或YouTube的NPR Wildcard频道观看或收听这场wildcard对话。

Watch or listen to that wildcard conversation on the NPR app or on YouTube at NPR Wildcard.

我们回来了。

And we're back.

我们一直在讨论最高法院正在审理的这个案件，该案探讨总统是否应有权无故解雇独立机构负责人。

We've been talking about the case the Supreme Court is considering that looks at whether the president should be able to fire the heads of independent agencies without cause.

正如你所说，安德烈娅，这个案件涉及联邦贸易委员会主席的去留问题。

This case is about the head of the Federal Trade Commission, as you said, Andrea.

特朗普还解雇或试图解雇过哪些人？

Who else has Trump fired or tried to fire?

很多人。

Lots of people.

比如，你知道的，功绩制保护委员会的民主党成员，国家劳工关系委员会的成员。

So, you know, Democratic members of the Merit Systems Protection Board, the National Labor Relations Board.

我们还讨论过消费品安全委员会、平等就业机会委员会、联邦选举委员会、地面运输委员会等等。

We talked about the Consumer Product Safety Commission, also the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Federal Election Commission, the Surface Transportation Board, and and many more.

所以被解雇的成员数量非常庞大。

So lots and lots of members fired.

这些解雇行为对联邦雇员或更广泛的美国民众意味着什么？

And what do these firings mean for federal workers or for Americans more broadly?

我认为这确实让人质疑这些机构做出的决定、制定的规则或追查的公司，是否真正符合美国人民的最佳利益，还是这些决策受到了政治影响。

Well, I think it really throws to question whether the decisions made by these agencies, the rules they make or the companies they go after or what you know, whether those are really in the best interests of the American people or whether those decisions are influenced by politics.

特别是对联邦工作人员来说，特朗普已经解雇了很多联邦雇员。

And for federal workers specifically, you know, Trump has fired a lot of federal workers.

正常情况下，他们本可以向功绩制度保护委员会申诉被解雇的事宜。

And, you know, normally, the normal process for them would they could appeal their firings to the Merit Systems Protection Board.

但特朗普确实解雇了该委员会最后一位民主党成员，并任命了一名共和党人。

But Trump did fire the sole Democrat left on that board, and he has appointed a Republican.

这并不是说现在任职的那些共和党委员会成员不会公平处理案件。

So it's not to say that those Republican board members that are seated now wouldn't treat the cases fairly.

但如果总统可以无故解雇他们，你就能理解为何人们会怀疑他们处理案件的方式。

But if the president can fire them for any reason, you can see how there could be doubts about how they might approach any case.

玛拉，我的意思是，如果总统可以无故解雇这些机构负责人，这意味着什么？

And, Mara, I mean, what would it mean if the president could fire these agency leaders for any reason at all?

这意味着行政部门的权力变得更加个人化。

It means that the executive branch power becomes more personalized.

换句话说，这完全取决于总统及其当天的意愿。

In other words, this is about the president and what he wants on a given day.

如果总统权力扩大且独立机构负责人的制衡机制被取消，就意味着他可以随心所欲地施政。

If his powers are expanded and the checks and balances of independent agency heads are taken away, it means that he can govern on a whim.

大家已经目睹这位总统在不同事务上朝令夕改的情况。

And you have seen this president change his mind from day to day on various things.

但这实际上让我们回到了过去实行政治分肥制度的政府模式。

But this really becomes a kind of throwback to the kind of government we had when we had a patronage system.

政府雇佣了总统的支持者或亲属，这些人未必是最专业的专家人才。

And the government hired people who were supporters of the president or relatives of the president, and they didn't necessarily get the most professional expert people.

此外，批评者会指出这种任人唯亲的体系更容易滋生腐败。

And, also, you will hear critics of this move say that a patronage system was much more susceptible to corruption.

无论最高法院对此案作出何种裁决，显然都将对未来总统权力产生重大影响，无论是现任总统还是继任者。

Whatever happens with this case before the supreme court, it obviously will have major implications for presidential power going forward for this president and for others.

好的。

Alright.

我们今天的讨论就到这里。

We're gonna leave it there for today.

非常感谢你的参与，安德莉亚。

Thank you so much for being with us, Andrea.

谢谢邀请我。

Thanks for having me.

我是莎拉·麦卡蒙。

I'm Sarah McCammond.

我负责政治新闻报道。

I cover politics.

我是玛拉·埃利亚森，高级国家政治记者。

And I'm Mara Eliason, senior national political correspondent.

感谢您收听NPR政治播客。

And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.

本周《此时此地》节目中，数据中心和人工智能正在推高电力需求，考验着一些州坚持气候目标的能力。

This week on Here and Now Anytime, data centers and AI are driving up demand for electricity, testing the ability of some states to stick to their climate goals.

清洁能源短缺为地热能创造了机会，也让老旧的核电站重新启用。

The clean power crunch is giving geothermal energy a chance and bringing old nuclear plants out of retirement.

这里是本周的《随时随刻》，一档来自NPR和WBUR的播客节目。

That's this week on Here and Now Anytime, a podcast from NPR and WBUR.

我是杰西·索恩。

I'm Jesse Thorne.

本周

This week

在《靶心》节目中，我们将从纽约人民即兴剧院的现场为您带来直播。

on Bullseye, we're coming to you live from the pit, the People's Improv Theater in New York City.

我们将听到H·约翰·本杰明、贾德·阿比姆罗德以及托尼·夏拉布的分享，后者在CNN有一档关于面包的新节目。

We'll hear from H John Benjamin, Jad Abimrod, and Tony Chaloub, who has a new show on CNN about bread.

对我来说这更像是一次探索，也是免费旅行和品尝美食的借口。

It was really more of a an exploration for me and an excuse to travel and eat for free.

这里是《靶心》。

That's bullseye.

在NPR应用程序或maximumfun.org上找到我们，或在你获取播客的任何地方收听。

Find us on the NPR app at maximumfun.org or wherever you get your podcasts.