Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Citation: Show-cause order served on James Madison, Secretary of State, 1802; Records of the Supreme Court of the United States; Record Group 267; National Archives.
引文：1802 年向国务卿詹姆斯·麦迪逊发出的秀事令；美国最高法院的记录；唱片组267；国家档案馆。
(The document shows damage from the 1898 fire in the Capitol Building.)
（该文件显示了 1898 年国会大厦火灾造成的损坏。）
The decision in this Supreme Court Case established the right of the courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government.
最高法院此案的判决确立了法院确定其他两个政府部门的行为是否符合宪法的权利。
In 1801, outgoing President John Adams had issued William Marbury a commission as justice of the peace — but the new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver it.
1801 年，即将卸任的总统约翰·亚当斯 (John Adams) 授予威廉·马伯里 (William Marbury) 太平绅士的任命，但新任国务卿詹姆斯·麦迪逊 (James Madison) 拒绝授予该任命。
Marbury then sued to obtain it.
马布里随后提起诉讼以获得它。
With his decision in Marbury v.
凭借他在马布里诉案件中的决定
Madison , Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of “checks and balances” created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful.
麦迪逊首席大法官约翰·马歇尔确立了司法审查原则，这是对“制衡”体系的重要补充，旨在防止联邦政府的任何一个部门变得过于强大。
“A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” With these words written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court for the first time declared unconstitutional a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.
“与宪法相抵触的法律无效。”最高法院首席大法官马歇尔写下这句话，首次宣布国会通过并由总统签署的法律违宪。
Nothing stated in the Constitution gave the Court this specific power.
宪法中没有任何规定赋予法院这种特定的权力。
Marshall, however, believed that the Supreme Court should have a role equal to those of the other two branches of government.
然而，马歇尔认为最高法院应该发挥与其他两个政府部门同等的作用。
When James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote a defense of the Constitution in The Federalist , they explained their judgment that a strong national government must have built-in restraints: “You must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” The writers of the Constitution had given the executive and legislative branches powers that would limit each other as well as the judiciary branch.
当詹姆斯·麦迪逊、亚历山大·汉密尔顿和约翰·杰伊在《联邦党人文集》上为宪法辩护时，他们解释了他们的判断，即一个强大的国家政府必须有内在的限制：“你必须首先使政府能够控制被统治者；其次迫使它控制自己。”宪法的起草者赋予行政部门和立法部门相互限制的权力，也赋予司法部门相互限制的权力。
The Constitution gave Congress the power to impeach and remove officials, including judges or the President himself.
宪法赋予国会弹劾和罢免官员的权力，包括法官或总统本人。
The President was given the veto power to restrain Congress and the authority to appoint members of the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate.
总统拥有限制国会的否决权，并有权在参议院的建议和同意下任命最高法院法官。
In this intricate system, the role of the Supreme Court had not been defined.
在这个错综复杂的体系中，最高法院的作用尚未明确。
It therefore fell to a strong Chief Justice like Marshall to complete the triangular structure of checks and balances by establishing the principle of judicial review.
因此，就需要像马歇尔这样强有力的首席大法官来通过确立司法审查原则来完成制衡的三角结构。
Although no other law was declared unconstitutional until the Dred Scott decision of 1857, the role of the Supreme Court to invalidate federal and state laws that are contrary to the Constitution has never been seriously challenged.
尽管在 1857 年德雷德·斯科特判决之前没有其他法律被宣布违宪，但最高法院使违反宪法的联邦和州法律无效的作用从未受到过严重挑战。
“The Constitution of the United States,” said Woodrow Wilson, “was not made to fit us like a strait jacket.
伍德罗·威尔逊说：“美国宪法并不是像紧身衣一样适合我们的。
In its elasticity lies its chief greatness.” The often-praised wisdom of the authors of the Constitution consisted largely of their restraint.
它的主要优点就在于它的弹性。”宪法起草者们经常被称赞的智慧很大程度上来自于他们的克制。
They resisted the temptation to write too many specifics into the basic document.
他们抵制住了在基本文件中写入太多细节的诱惑。
They contented themselves with establishing a framework of government that included safeguards against the abuse of power.
他们满足于建立一个政府框架，其中包括防止滥用权力的保障措施。
When the Marshall decision in Marbury v.
当马歇尔在马伯里诉。
Madison completed the system of checks and balances, the United States had a government in which laws could be enacted, interpreted and executed to meet challenging circumstances.
麦迪逊完善了制衡体系，美国有了一个可以制定、解释和执行法律以应对挑战性环境的政府。
This document is available on DocsTeach , the online tool for teaching with documents from the National Archives.
该文档可在 DocsTeach 上找到，这是一个使用国家档案馆文档进行教学的在线工具。
Find teaching activities that incorporate this document, or create your own online activity .
查找包含本文档的教学活动，或创建您自己的在线活动。
Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.
首席大法官马歇尔宣读了法院的意见。
At the last term on the affidavits then read and filed with the clerk, a rule was granted in this case, requiring the Secretary of State to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, directing him to deliver to William Marbury his commission as a justice of the peace for the county of Washington, in the district of Columbia.
在宣誓书的最后一项，然后向书记官宣读并归档时，在本案中批准了一项规则，要求国务卿说明为什么不应发出履行职责的理由，指示他向威廉·马伯里交付哥伦比亚特区华盛顿县太平绅士的任命。
No cause has been shown, and the present motion is for a mandamus.
没有说明任何原因，目前的动议是要求履行职责。
The peculiar delicacy of this case, the novelty of some of its circumstances, and the real difficulty attending the points which occur in it, require a complete exposition of the principles on which the opinion to be given by the court is founded.
本案的特殊性、某些情况的新颖性以及涉及该案中出现的要点的真正困难，需要对法院提出意见所依据的原则进行完整的阐述。
.
。
.
。
.
。
In the order in which the court has viewed this subject, the following questions have been considered and decided:
按照法院审议该主题的顺序，考虑并决定了以下问题：
1st.
第一。
Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?
申请人是否有权获得他所要求的佣金？
2d.
2d.
If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
如果他有一项权利，而该权利遭到侵犯，他所在国家的法律是否为他提供补救措施？
3d.
3d.
If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court?
如果他们确实为他提供了补救措施，这是否是本法院发出的强制令？
The first object of inquiry is -- 1st.
第一个询问对象是——1号。
Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?
申请人是否有权获得他所要求的佣金？
.
。
.
。
.
。
It [is] decidedly the opinion of the court, that when a commission has been signed by the president, the appointment is made; and that the commission is complete, when the seal of the United States has been affixed to it by the secretary of state.
法院的明确意见是，当总统签署委托书后，任命即告完成；当国务卿盖上美国印章后，委员会就完成了。
.
。
.
。
.
。
To withhold his commission, therefore, is an act deemed by the court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested legal right.
因此，法院认为拒绝其委托的行为不符合法律规定，但侵犯了既定的合法权利。
This brings us to the second inquiry; which is 2dly.
这给我们带来了第二个询问；这是 2dly。
If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
如果他有一项权利，而该权利遭到侵犯，他所在国家的法律是否为他提供补救措施？
The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.
公民自由的本质当然在于每个人在受到伤害时都有权要求法律的保护。
One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection.
政府的首要职责之一就是提供这种保护。
[The] government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.
美国政府被强调称为法治政府，而不是人治政府。
It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.
如果法律没有对侵犯既定合法权利的行为提供补救措施，那么它肯定不再配得上这个崇高的称号。
.
。
.
。
.
。
By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience.
根据美国宪法，总统被赋予某些重要的政治权力，在行使这些权力时，他可以运用自己的自由裁量权，并且只对他的国家的政治性格和他自己的良心负责。
To aid him in the performance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders.
为了帮助他履行这些职责，他被授权任命某些官员，这些官员根据他的权力并按照他的命令行事。
In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion.
在这种情况下，他们的行为就是他的行为；无论对行政裁量权的使用方式有何看法，仍然存在并且可能存在，没有权力控制该裁量权。
The subjects are political.
主题是政治性的。
They respect the nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive.
他们尊重国家，而不是个人权利，并且被委托给行政机关，行政机关的决定是决定性的。
.
。
.
。
.
。
But when the legislature proceeds to impose on that officer other duties; when he is directed peremptorily to perform certain acts; when the rights of individuals are dependent on the performance of those acts; he is so far the officer of the law; is amenable to the laws for his conduct; and cannot at his discretion sport away the vested rights of others.
但是当立法机关继续向该官员施加其他职责时；当他被强制指示执行某些行为时；当个人的权利取决于这些行为的实施时；到目前为止，他是执法人员；其行为遵守法律；并且不能自行决定剥夺他人的既得权利。
The conclusion from this reasoning is, that where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the executive, merely to execute the will of the President, or rather to act in cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable.
由此推理得出的结论是，如果各部门负责人是行政机关的政治或机密代理人，只是为了执行总统的意志，或者更确切地说，在行政机关拥有宪法或法律自由裁量权的情况下采取行动，那么没有什么比他们的行为只能在政治上受到审查更清楚的了。
But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear, that the individual who considers himself injured, has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.
但是，如果法律指定了具体义务，并且个人权利取决于该义务的履行，那么似乎同样清楚的是，认为自己受到伤害的个人有权诉诸其国家的法律寻求补救。
.
。
.
。
.
。
It is, then, the opinion of the Court [that Marbury has a] right to the commission; a refusal to deliver which is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy.
那么，法院的意见是[马伯里有]获得委任状的权利；拒绝交付是对这项权利的明显侵犯，对此他所在国家的法律为他提供了补救措施。
3dly.
3dly。
He is entitled to the remedy for which he applies.
他有权获得他所申请的补救措施。
This depends on -- 1st.
这取决于——第一。
The nature of the writ applied for, and,
所申请令状的性质，以及，
This, then, is a plain case for a mandamus, either to deliver the commission, or a copy of it from the record; and it only remains to be enquired,
那么，这是一个简单的履行职责的案例，要么交付委托书，要么从记录中交付委托书的副本；只需要询问，
The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the Supreme Court "to issue writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States."
建立美国司法法院的法案授权最高法院“在法律原则和惯例所授权的案件中，向美国权力下指定的任何法院或担任职务的人员发出履行职责令状”。
The Secretary of State, being a person holding an office under the authority of the United States, is precisely within the letter of the description; and if this court is not authorized to issue a writ of mandamus to such an officer, it must be because the law is unconstitutional, and therefore incapable of conferring the authority, and assigning the duties which its words purport to confer and assign.
国务卿是在美国权力下担任职务的人，这正是描述中的内容；如果本法院未被授权向此类官员发出履职令，那一定是因为该法律违宪，因此无法授予权力，并分配其文字所声称授予和指派的职责。
The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish.
宪法将美国的全部司法权赋予一个最高法院，国会等下级法院应不时任命和设立。
This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and, consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States.
该权力明确适用于根据美国法律产生的所有案件；因此，可以以某种形式对本案进行行使；因为所主张的权利是由美国法律赋予的。
In the distribution of this power it is declared that "the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party.
在分配这一权力时，宣布“最高法院对所有影响大使、其他公使和领事的案件以及以国家为当事方的案件拥有初审管辖权。
In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction."
在所有其他案件中，最高法院拥有上诉管辖权。”
It has been insisted, at the bar, that as the original grant of jurisdiction, to the supreme and inferior courts, is general, and the clause, assigning original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, contains no negative or restrictive words, the power remains to the legislature, to assign original jurisdiction to that court in other cases than those specified in the article which has been recited; provided those cases belong to the judicial power of the United States.
律师界坚持认为，由于最初授予最高法院和下级法院的管辖权是一般性的，而且将最初管辖权分配给最高法院的条款不包含任何否定或限制性词语，因此立法机关仍然有权在已引用的条款中规定的其他案件中将最初管辖权分配给该法院；前提是这些案件属于美国司法权。
If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the legislature to apportion the judicial power between the supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power, and the tribunals in which it should be vested.
如果打算让立法机关自行决定根据该机构的意愿在最高法院和下级法院之间分配司法权，那么除了界定司法权以及司法权应归属的法庭之外，进一步的行动肯定是毫无用处的。
The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage, is entirely without meaning, if such is to be the construction.
本节的后续部分纯粹是多余的，完全没有意义，如果这是这样的结构的话。
If congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original; and original jurisdiction where the constitution has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdiction, made in the constitution, is form without substance.
如果国会仍然可以自由地赋予本法院上诉管辖权，则宪法已宣布其管辖权的地方应为原始管辖权；宪法规定的初审管辖权应为上诉；宪法规定的管辖权分配只是形式，没有实质内容。
Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed; and in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all.
肯定性词语在其作用中常常否定所肯定的其他对象。在这种情况下，必须赋予它们否定或排他的意义，否则它们就没有任何作用。
It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.
不能认为宪法中的任何条款是无效的；因此，除非文字需要，否则这种解释是不可接受的。
If the solicitude of the convention, respecting our peace with foreign powers, induced a provision that the supreme court should take original jurisdiction in cases which might be supposed to affect them; yet the clause would have proceeded no further than to provide for such cases, if no further restriction on the powers of congress had been intended.
如果公约出于尊重我们与外国势力的和平的考虑而制定了一项规定，即最高法院应对可能影响他们的案件拥有初审管辖权；然而，如果不打算进一步限制国会的权力，该条款就只是对此类情况作出规定。
That they should have appellate jurisdiction in all other cases, with such exceptions as congress might make, is no restriction; unless the words be deemed exclusive of original jurisdiction.
他们对所有其他案件拥有上诉管辖权，国会可能规定的例外情况除外，这并不是限制；除非这些词语被视为排除原始管辖权。
When an instrument organizing fundamentally a judicial system, divides it into one supreme, and so many inferior courts as the legislature may ordain and establish; then enumerates its powers, and proceeds so far to distribute them, as to define the jurisdiction of the supreme court by declaring the cases in which it shall take original jurisdiction, and that in others it shall take appellate jurisdiction; the plain import of the words seems to be, that in one class of cases its jurisdiction is original, and not appellate; in the other it is appellate, and not original.
当一项从根本上组织司法系统的文书将其划分为一个最高法院和立法机关可能指定和设立的多个下级法院时；然后列举其权力，并着手分配这些权力，以通过宣布最高法院应采取初审管辖权的案件和在其他案件中应采取上诉管辖权的方式来界定最高法院的管辖权；这句话的明显含义似乎是，在一类案件中，其管辖权是初审管辖权，而不是上诉管辖权；另一种是上诉，而不是原案。
If any other construction would render the clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to their obvious meaning.
如果任何其他解释会使该条款无效，那么这是拒绝此类其他解释并坚持其明显含义的另一个原因。
To enable this court, then, to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction.
那么，为了使该法院能够发布履行职责，必须证明它是在行使上诉管辖权，或者是使他们能够行使上诉管辖权所必需的。
It has been stated at the bar that the appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms, and that if it be the will of the legislature that a mandamus should be used for that purpose, that will must be obeyed.
律师会上指出，上诉管辖权可以通过多种形式行使，如果立法机关的意愿是为此目的使用履行职责，则必须遵守该意愿。
This is true, yet the jurisdiction must be appellate, not original.
这是事实，但管辖权必须是上诉管辖权，而不是初审管辖权。
It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction, that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that cause.
上诉管辖权的基本标准是它修改和纠正已经提起的诉讼中的诉讼程序，而不是创造该诉讼。
Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper, is in effect the same as to sustain an original action for that paper, and, therefore, seems not to belong to appellate, but to original jurisdiction.
因此，尽管履行职责可能会提交给法院，但向官员发出此类令状以交付文件，实际上与维持该文件的原始诉讼相同，因此，似乎不属于上诉管辖权，而是属于初审管辖权。
Neither is it necessary in such a case as this, to enable the court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction.
在这种情况下，也没有必要让法院行使上诉管辖权。
The authority, therefore, given to the Supreme Court, by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution; and it becomes necessary to enquire whether a jurisdiction, so conferred, can be exercised.
因此，建立美国司法法院的法案赋予最高法院向公职人员发出履职令状的权力，似乎并没有得到宪法的保证；并且有必要询问是否可以行使如此授予的管辖权。
The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest.
一项与宪法相抵触的法案能否成为本国法律，是美国非常感兴趣的问题；但幸运的是，其复杂程度与其兴趣不相称。
It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
似乎只需要承认某些原则，这些原则应该是早已确立的，就可以做出决定。
That the people have an original right to establish, for their future govern-ment, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected.
人民拥有为他们未来的政府制定他们认为最有利于他们自己幸福的原则的原始权利，这是整个美国结构建立的基础。
The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated.
行使这一原始权利是一项非常大的努力；它也不可能也不应该经常重复。
The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental.
因此，如此确立的原则被视为基本原则。
And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
由于它们所依据的权威是至高无上的，而且很少能采取行动，因此它们被设计为永久性的。
This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers.
这个原始的、最高的意志组织了政府，并分配给不同部门各自的权力。
It may either stop here, or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
它可能会到此为止，或者设定某些部门不得超越的限制。
The government of the United States is of the latter description.
美国政府属于后一种类型。
The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.
立法机关的权力是明确和有限的；宪法是这样写的，这些限制不得被错误或遗忘。
To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?
如果这些限制可以随时被那些打算受到限制的人通过，那么限制权力的目的是什么？以书面形式作出的限制又是出于什么目的？
The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation.
如果这些限制不限制其所施加的人，并且如果禁止的行为和允许的行为具有同等的义务，那么有限权力和无限权力的政府之间的区别就被废除了。
It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
宪法控制任何与其相抵触的立法行为，这是一个显而易见的、无可争议的命题。或者，立法机关可以通过普通法案修改宪法。
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground.
在这些选择之间没有中间立场。
The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
宪法要么是最高的、至高无上的法律，不能通过普通手段改变，要么与普通立法行为处于同一水平，并且像其他行为一样，当立法机关愿意改变它时，它是可以改变的。
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
如果前一部分为真，那么违反宪法的立法行为就不是法律；如果后一部分为真，那么成文宪法就是人民为了限制其本身无限的权力而进行的荒谬尝试。
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.
当然，所有制定成文宪法的人都认为它们构成了国家的基本和最高法律，因此，每一个这样的政府的理论都必须是，立法机关的行为与宪法相抵触，是无效的。
This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is, conse-quently, to be considered, by this court, as one of the fundamental principles of our society.
这一理论本质上是依附于成文宪法的，因此，本法院将其视为我们社会的基本原则之一。
It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.
因此，在进一步考虑这一主题时不应忽视这一点。
If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect?
如果立法机关的一项法案与宪法相抵触，并且无效，那么尽管其无效，它是否仍对法院具有约束力，并迫使法院强制执行该法案？
Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law?
或者，换句话说，虽然它不是法律，但它是否构成了像法律一样有效的规则？
This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on.
这实际上就是推翻理论上的既定事实；乍一看，这似乎太荒谬了，无法坚持下去。
It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
然而，它应该受到更仔细的考虑。
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
明确法律是什么是司法部门的职权和职责。
Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.
那些将规则应用于特定案件的人，必须对规则进行必要的阐述和解释。
If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.
如果两项法律相互冲突，法院必须就每项法律的实施做出裁决。
So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case.
因此，如果一项法律与宪法相抵触；如果法律和宪法都适用于某一特定案件，则法院必须要么根据法律对该案件做出裁决，而无视宪法；要么或符合宪法，无视法律；法院必须确定这些相互冲突的规则中哪一条适用于该案件。
This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
这是司法职责的本质。
If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
那么，如果法院要考虑宪法，并且宪法高于立法机关的任何普通法案，那么宪法，而不是立法机关的普通法案，必须管辖它们都适用的案件。
Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that the courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.
那么，那些对法庭应将宪法视为至高无上的法律这一原则提出异议的人，就不得不坚持认为法院必须对宪法闭上眼睛，只看到法律。
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.
这一学说将颠覆所有成文宪法的基础。
It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory.
它将宣布，根据我国政府的原则和理论，一项行为是完全无效的，但实际上却是完全强制性的。
It would declare that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual.
它将宣布，如果立法机关做出明确禁止的事情，那么尽管有明确禁止，这种行为实际上是有效的。
It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits.
这将赋予立法机关实际和真正的全能，同时也声称将其权力限制在狭窄的范围内。
It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
它规定了限制，并宣布可以随意超越这些限制。
That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions -- a written constitution -- would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction.
因此，它使我们所认为的政治制度的最大进步——一部成文宪法——化为乌有，在美国，成文宪法受到如此多的尊重，这本身就足以拒绝制定宪法。
But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.
但美国宪法的特殊表述为反对它提供了更多的论据。
The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution.
美国的司法权适用于宪法规定的所有案件。
Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that in using it the constitution should not be looked into?
难道那些赋予这一权力的人的意图是说在使用这一权力时不应审查宪法吗？
That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?
根据宪法产生的案件是否应该在不审查产生该案件的文书的情况下做出裁决？
This is too extravagant to be maintained.
这太奢侈了，难以维持。
In some cases, then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges.
那么，在某些情况下，法官必须审查宪法。
And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?
如果他们真的可以打开它，那么他们禁止阅读或遵守其中的哪一部分？
There are many other parts of the constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.
宪法还有许多其他部分可以用来说明这个主题。
It is declared that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour; and a suit instituted to recover it.
声明“对任何国家出口的物品均不征税”。假设对棉花、烟草或面粉的出口征收关税；并提起诉讼以追回它。
Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case?
这种情况是否应该判决？
Ought the judges to close their eyes on the constitution, and only see the law?
法官是否应该对宪法视而不见，只看法律？
The constitution declares that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." If, however, such a bill should be passed, and a person should be prosecuted under it; must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution endeavors to preserve?
宪法规定“不得通过任何剥夺公民权利的法案或事后法律”。然而，如果这样一项法案获得通过，并且某人应根据该法案受到起诉；法院是否必须将宪法力图保护的受害者判处死刑？
"No person," says the constitution, "shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
宪法规定，“任何人不得被判犯有叛国罪，除非有同一公开行为的两名证人作证，或在公开法庭上供认不讳。”
Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts.
这里宪法的语言是专门针对法院的。
It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from.
它直接为他们规定了不得背离的证据规则。
If the legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?
如果立法机关应该改变这一规则，并宣布一名证人或庭外供述足以定罪，那么宪法原则是否必须屈服于立法行为？
From these, and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.
从这些以及可能做出的许多其他选择中，显然，宪法的制定者考虑将该文书作为法院和立法机关管理的规则。
Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it?
否则为什么它要求法官宣誓支持它呢？
This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character.
这一誓言当然以特别的方式适用于他们的官方行为。
How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!
如果他们被用作工具，并且是知情的工具，因为他们违反了他们发誓支持的东西，那么将其强加于他们是多么不道德！
The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject.
立法机关强制进行的就职宣誓也完全表明了对此问题的立法意见。
It is in these words: "I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as _____, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States." Why does a Judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government?
正是在这些话中：“我庄严宣誓，我将在不尊重任何人的情况下执行司法，并为穷人和富人提供平等的权利；并且我将根据我的最大能力和理解，在符合美国宪法和法律的情况下，忠实、公正地履行我作为 _____ 所应承担的所有职责。”如果美国宪法没有为他的政府制定规则，为什么法官要宣誓按照美国宪法履行职责呢？
If it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?
如果它对他关闭，他无法检查呢？
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery.
如果事情的真实情况是这样的话，这比庄严的嘲笑还要糟糕。
To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.
开处方或宣誓同样构成犯罪。
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
同样值得注意的是，在宣布什么是国家的最高法律时，首先提到了宪法本身。并不是美国的一般法律，而是只有根据宪法制定的法律才具有这一级别。
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
因此，美国宪法的特殊用语确认并强化了这一原则，即与宪法相抵触的法律无效，这一原则被认为是所有成文宪法的基本原则；法院以及其他部门均受该文书的约束。