Chapter 5 fifth letter

Brother Lu: Hello! It was a pleasure to hear from you.You have noticed that in my previous letters I have often referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court.What role does the Supreme Court of the United States play in enforcing the Constitution?This also starts with the structure of government stipulated in the U.S. Constitution. You must remember that the founding fathers of the United States were always very apprehensive about building a huge state apparatus. They used to choose not to have a federal government before they were sure they could handle it.Americans are still telling their younger generation these contradictions of their predecessors in their middle school textbooks:

"The men who wrote the U.S. Constitution lived through the war against the British. They couldn't easily forget how a powerful king took away the rights of the people. They remembered the tax laws and how soldiers fought without warrants. , searched their homes. On the other hand, they have found that the government is too weak, and there will be no law and order. For these reasons. They give some very careful thoughts on the establishment of a new government, and their thoughts are in the Today, two hundred years later, it is still guiding us. We should know their thoughts."What kind of thoughts are these?The key to it is decentralization.The first is to cut the power of the government into two levels horizontally.That is, the separation of powers between the federal government and local governments.Of course, all countries have two layers of central government and local government, nothing unusual.But in the United States, this division is quite complete.In other words, those who established the federal government did not intend to monopolize power at the beginning, and established this idea in the constitution in the form of legislation.One thing I want to emphasize again is that the law enforcement in the United States is very serious, especially the Constitution. You will find that every word is very effective.

As a result, the United States was very inconsistent in various policies from the very beginning.Its image is therefore also very inconsistent.For example, on the issue of slavery, there was a huge difference between the South and the North of the United States very early on.The southern part of the United States is a traditional agricultural state. Slaves have always been an important part of the low-skilled agricultural labor force, while the northern part is dominated by large-scale industry, which requires skilled workers. Different economic backgrounds form different concepts.However, the high degree of local autonomy in the United States has resulted in a situation where each goes his own way.Before the abolition of slavery in the United States, slaves in the south had been fleeing to the north. After the American Civil War more than 100 years ago, federal legislation prohibited slavery. To the industrial cities of the North, long before the Civil Rights Act desegregated races, black folk songs were singing "Sweet Home, Chicago."Therefore, the appearance of the north and the south at that time was very different.

Generally speaking, the United States is a country with a lot of local autonomy.Every local official is directly elected by the local people and has nothing to do with the federal government.Governments and leaders at the state level, or even at the city level, never have to scruple or consider how the central government or the president thinks of them.On the contrary, they are always worried about their image among voters, and try their best to show their voters that they have the interests of local people in mind.Otherwise, he will definitely not be elected in the next term.Therefore, in the United States, there has always been a situation where the central government and the local government are opposed to each other, and everyone thinks this is a normal phenomenon, and they have always been used to being in a state of constant coordination with each other.

So, in the United States, sometimes things happen that are very strange to us.For example, the California state government sued the US federal government for huge compensation.Because California borders Mexico, a large number of illegal immigrants come in from Mexico every day. According to U.S. law, no matter whether they are illegal immigrants or not, some Americans think that the most basic things must be provided to them free of charge, such as emergency medical assistance. and compulsory education for young people.In this way, illegal immigration not only brings many problems to California, but also increases a great economic burden.The California government justly sued the federal government in court for failing to guard the border, because it is the federal government's business to guard the border.The California government said that it is precisely because the federal government has not guarded the border that California has suffered a lot of losses caused by illegal immigration. Therefore, it is only natural that the federal government should compensate.

In 1964, Congress passed the federal Civil Rights Act, which prohibited racial segregation anywhere in the country.Several southern states were very angry, not only because the racist sentiment in the southern United States was still very strong at that time, but also because the state government believed that this federal legislation was infringing on the self-government of the southern states, first of all, the state of Alabama. The governor took the lead in keeping black students out of white schools.As a result, President Kennedy sent the National Guard to escort black students to school.Georgia in the south is also one of the few states that insisted on racial segregation. In order to express its contempt for the federal government, the state legislature passed legislation in its own state to change the pattern of the Confederate flag during the Civil War Putting it on the state flag, it is their power to decide the form of the state flag, and the federal government has no right to interfere.

After more than 30 years, great changes have taken place in the southern United States. The governor of Alabama who stood at the school gate to block black students is already very old.He still remembers coming out and apologizing to the public for his actions back then, even though everyone had forgiven him long ago.Atlanta, the capital of Georgia, already has a black mayor, and the city, with its international slogan, won the right to host the 1996 Olympic Games.Governor Miller of the Democratic Party felt that such a state flag caused by historical reasons would really damage the image of the state in the world and proposed amendments.However, the proposal has sparked a strong local reaction.After the Civil War, Americans have always been there to reflect.Their pain at the onset of this civil war seemed to be growing.In fact, the emancipation of black slaves was only a small part of the cause of the war at that time, and the main reason was that the South demanded greater autonomy and even separation.Now in the United States, it is impossible for anyone to show off the victory of the Northern Army. Whether it is the South or the North, they first think that this murder among compatriots is a tragedy in American history. "Basic consensus on this issue.In today's American South, people regardless of their views respect their predecessors for their hometown and ideals. In the South, you can see monuments commemorating the Confederate soldiers who died in the war everywhere. The famous one in Atlanta The Dushishan Park in the famous Dushishan Park, the huge Dushishan is carved with reliefs of the generals of the Southern Army.When Governor Miller proposed to change the flag, many people opposed it, but the issue of race had already settled at the bottom. People put forward the reason that the Confederate flag was part of the historical heritage of the South, and there was no need to change it.In the end, Governor Miller, confident that he was outnumbered, voluntarily canceled the proposal.The state flag still flies there today.

This year's celebration of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations is even more unexpected.Since the United Nations building is located in New York City, the mayor gave a concert for the heads of state who came from all over the world to celebrate.However, before the opening, the mayor of New York actually asked Arafat, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, to be "invited" out of the theater.For many years, because the US government has always stood on the side of Israel in the conflicts between Arab countries and Israel, the Palestine Liberation Organization has always regarded the United States as an enemy. Their guerrilla activities also include assassination activities such as bombing. There are also many Americans.Therefore, the Western world has long regarded Arafat and his organization as terrorists.You know, in the Middle East peace process in the past two years, not only the leaders of the two parties involved have made great progress in concept and action, both have won the Nobel Peace Prize, and the United States has also become a mediator in promoting peace.Just when peace has just taken its first step and all relations are not yet very stable, everyone of course hopes to take the opportunity of getting together to deepen mutual relations, at least not to cause any troubles.Just happened to meet a New York mayor who "does not believe in evil".He said, I only know that Arafat is a terrorist who killed many Americans, and he is not welcome at my concert here.As a result, he was really "invited" out.

In this regard, the diplomacy of the US federal government and President Clinton are really angry.However, after searching for a long time, there is no basis to punish the mayor. It is not illegal for him to do so.This is a concert held in New York City, the mayor is the host, it is in his territory, and even President Clinton is an invited guest.Of course, the mayor has the final say here.In addition to apologizing on behalf of himself, Clinton can't even say that he wants to apologize on behalf of New York City, because he can't represent New York City at all, and he doesn't have the right to do so.

In addition to the horizontal division of power in the United States, the Constitution also cuts the power of the national government vertically into three.This is the "separation of powers" that you have long known, that is, the absolute independence of the legislative, executive, and judiciary.You know, Montesquieu has a systematic discussion on the separation of powers.When the United States implemented the separation of powers, it was particularly thorough.Such a design of the constitution is to prevent one branch from becoming too powerful.Therefore, always make the actions of each branch subject to the check of other branches.For example, Congress as a legislature passes a bill, and the president, as an executive body, can express disapproval and exercise his veto power. If Congress insists, a two-thirds vote must be obtained to enact the bill.On the contrary, the bill proposed by the president must also be voted by the Congress, which can pass or oppose it.The Supreme Court, as part of the judiciary, has the power to review any bills proposed by the President and Congress, and then it not only has the power to interpret the bills, but also has the power to declare whether these bills violate the Constitution.However, the Supreme Court itself does not have the power to propose bills and legislation.This state of the three branches of power is the balance and restriction of power.

The above mentioned are the main constraints, in fact there are many other constraints.For example, the U.S. Congress has the power to impeach the president and justices on sufficient grounds.No one can rest assured that they are elected, even during the term of office, they are not guaranteed, and the same is true for members of Congress.Congress has a special ethics committee.This year, the chairman of the Federal Budget Committee of the US Congress was pursued by the Ethics Committee because of a sex scandal, and was finally forced to resign.The president's every move is also under the scrutiny of the public.President Clinton has a cat named "Sock". This "first cat" is loved by many Americans, and a large number of people write letters to "Sock".Since the president of the United States is directly elected by the whole people, successive presidents have paid great attention to their relationship with ordinary people. "Socks" is of course the best way to write back letters to people who like it.Because the task of replying to the letter was too heavy, there was a person in the White House who wrote the reply for "Socks".As a result, the White House was immediately condemned for this move, saying that "Sock" was the private cat of the president's family, how could a public official who took taxpayers' money write back for him.The positions of members of Congress on all major issues are under the supervision of the American people.The hearings of the U.S. Congress, except for some diplomatic and national defense secrets, are generally open to the public.Also, its votes on various issues are public.That is, each congressman cannot hide from his voters whether he votes for or against various issues.Members of Congress delivered speeches in Congress, and the law stipulates that ordinary Americans have the right to request from Congress.In addition, the entire hearing process was broadcast live by a special TV channel.When we first came here, we found this channel to be very strange. It often broadcast congressional hearings very late. Since it was already off-duty time, the members of Congress were also off-duty, and almost no one listened to it except the host and clerks. A parliamentary hall was empty, and the member who spoke was still talking there.This is because the daytime agenda is full of major issues, and if members of parliament still have opinions on various issues, they can only arrange them at night.However, he is not talking in vain. In addition to the records, his voters can also know his attitude on TV. Of course, it sounds like an ideal blueprint, but it is not smooth sailing when it is put into practice.It is said that when the United States discusses the constitution, it encounters the problem of how to determine the number of representatives from each state.The number of representatives representing a state in Congress, of course, directly affects the success or failure of voting for the interests of the state.In the United States, there was a big difference in the number of members between large states and small states at that time. If the number of congressmen was determined according to the population ratio, the interests of small states would not be reflected; I feel at a disadvantage.At first they also argued endlessly, and finally they reached a compromise, agreeing to adopt such a form of Congress in the United States: its House of Representatives determines the number of members in proportion to the population, and its Senate has two members for each state regardless of the size of the state. The interests of affirming small states are also safeguarded.Reaching such a compromise was not easy, and American history called it the "great compromise." In human history, people are very used to label a victory as "great", but rarely add such an adjective to a compromise, but Americans are really grateful to their predecessors for this compromise, which requires a high degree of Rational spirit, wisdom and moral strength.They reached a compromise, and only then did the U.S. Constitution and the possibility of implementing the Constitution come into being. You can't help but call it a remarkable historical progress.Such progress begins precisely with compromise.Real historical progress often begins with compromise. If there is no compromise, history can also be stalemate for many years.If one party subdues the other by force, it may not necessarily be a real historical progress from a long-term historical perspective. The text of the U.S. Constitution has not been revised a single word in more than 200 years, and its basic content is very stable.The content it adds is added in the form of "amendments", and the Bill of Rights is the first ten articles of the entire constitutional amendment.The US Congress is also very cautious about the addition of amendments.Since 1789, although more than 3,000 amendments have been proposed, so far, the US Congress has only passed 26 constitutional amendments. If you really want to understand the United States, it is very important to understand that the United States is a very loose country.You sometimes find that it has many contradictory formulations and practices, which is the result of its decentralization.The people who established this system in the first place wanted to achieve such an effect that "no one can make decisions on their own".Americans probably have the same goal except protecting the Constitution.Therefore, in terms of diplomacy, the United States often shows changes and contradictions, because the American people are changing, and the president and Congress often have different opinions.The president has absolutely no control over what resolutions the U.S. Congress passes. The President of the United States himself often has to make some "insincere" statements.Why do you say this way?Because in many cases, he has to say something that some American people think he has to "state", otherwise he will offend voters too much, which is very dangerous.For example, you know an American teenager who violated the law while visiting relatives in Singapore and was sentenced to "spanking" by the local court.After understanding, this kind of punishment is very heavy, and it will leave scars that will last forever. It is also very painful to be punished.Since the guy who caused trouble is not yet an adult, this kind of sentence is too outrageous for American culture. Therefore, a large number of Americans cannot accept this kind of sentence.As a result, President Clinton also requested the Singapore government to change the judgment.At that time, I asked my good friend Mike what he thought, and his clever eyes showed a smile, and he asked, "Linda, if you commit a crime in the United States, the American law will treat you differently because you are a foreigner." Is it?" I said of course not. "Then, why does our president want Singaporean law to treat an American differently?" This logic is very simple. So, does President Clinton not understand this principle?Don't forget, he is a lawyer.But no matter how much he thinks about it, he has no choice but to express his attitude. He has no choice but to make it right in front of the voters. In the United States, the president is the president, and the congress is the congress. The speaker of the congress cannot go to the White House without the invitation of the president.It is also rare for a president to accept an invitation from Congress to deliver a speech at the Capitol.The president has the opinions of the president, and the congress has the opinions of the congress. The president is elected every four years, the members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years, and the senators are elected every six years.Different presidents have different opinions, and different combinations of congresses also have different opinions. Let alone foreign policy, if a budget plan cannot be negotiated internally, the government will still be closed. I believe you will know about the "government shutdown" in the United States this year.Because none of its embassies and consulates abroad issued visas.The government is an executive agency, and it needs money to function.However, the budget plan for expenditures also needs to go through such a mutually restrictive approval process as mentioned above.If the president doesn't agree with Congress's budget, and Congress doesn't agree with the budget proposed by the president's White House, the trouble starts.If the Congress can forcefully pass it with two-thirds of the votes, the president will have to spend money according to the Congress’s budget. But this time, the Congress cannot get two-thirds of the votes in favor, thus causing a deadlock.During the stalemate, the government couldn't get the money, so all but the most essential government agencies shut down.The closing period just coincided with Christmas, and the Christmas tree in the White House, the country no longer pays the electricity bill, and the president has to use his salary to take care of the "No. 1 tree in the world."No matter how absurd this may seem to another country, it is within the normal range for the United States, and the current president has no choice but to save face.The problem is that other people are not used to this state, but the Americans themselves are very used to it, and they look completely "beaten by weather" and "not surprised by changes". It has been like this for more than 200 years, and no one takes it seriously.Americans have never worried about what will happen if their president and Congress disagree. On the contrary, if the president and Congress have never disagreed, Americans will be worried.But once this situation in the United States is reflected in its foreign relations, it will be messed up.People's protests have come to the door, and the Americans still don't understand where the key problem lies. Speaking of the US government shutdown, there is another interesting episode.The TV station interviewed some American children during the government shutdown and asked them what they thought of the government shutdown. A child naturally said that they (referring to the president and congressmen) were paid but could not do their jobs well. fired.A natural "little master" attitude, this is the basic education in the United States. When I first came here, I didn't quite believe it. Does the U.S. Congress really not listen to the president?The more you see it, the less surprised you are.What's more, in addition to the above-mentioned dispersion of power, the United States also has many independent forces.The United States is a country of private ownership, and the country does not have any profitable enterprises and companies.A large number of self-determined entrepreneurs in the society are a force that cannot be ignored. Except for countries that have been established as enemy countries by Congress, for other countries, it is impossible for the U.S. government to formulate a policy secretly to contain them. There are many reasons Simple, the U.S. government has no right to restrict its businessmen from investing and trading in these countries.In addition, American society also has social organizations representing various interest groups, for example, those representing the elderly, those representing minorities, those representing women, those representing doctors, those representing workers, etc., etc.They all exist legally under the protection of the Bill of Rights, and they also form a restrictive force on the government. The president cannot afford to mess with any of them.At the same time, various social forces themselves are achieving a restraint and balance effect.Therefore, the United States is not a top-down system, it is a flat spread.It looks chaotic at first glance, but precisely because they have coexisted for a long time and restricted each other, a special "order" has been established instead.In the more than two hundred years after the founding of the People's Republic of China, although the wave of immigration has intensified and the United States has almost become the center of the world's population flow, when you and I imagine it should be chaotic, it actually behaves very well. Order, which should be inseparable from a stable state structure. What is the Supreme Court of the United States like?The highest principle of the court is judicial independence. It relies on no one, helps no one, and listens to no one. It can be said that it is superior.The Supreme Court is composed of nine justices.The nine justices are nominated by the president and appointed with the approval of Congress, and justices of the Supreme Court are appointed for life.Maybe you will ask, since the justices are appointed by the president, will they be biased towards the president?The problem is that although the justice remains the same, the president keeps changing. His term is four years and he can only serve two consecutive terms at most.There are many American presidents who have no justices to retire in their short four years, and they have no chance to appoint a justice he "likes".The famous President Roosevelt in the history of the United States once suffered from the conservative Supreme Court at that time and wanted to appoint two more justices during his term of office. However, there were not so many retired justices, so he proposed to increase the number of justices of the Supreme Court Increased from 9 to 12.The result did not "succeed", so far, there are still nine justices.If the president breaks the law and the matter goes to the Supreme Court, the prestige of the president will be lost at all.When Nixon got into trouble with the Watergate case because of the lawlessness of his subordinates, he thought he could escape. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, he still tried to cover it up illegally.One Supreme Court justice said years later that his greatest regret in life was not sending Nixon to prison.Recently, President Clinton's "Whitewater Case" has caused a lot of noise in Congress.The independent investigative committee of the Congress asked the president to hand over relevant documents, but the president was unwilling.This matter is about to reach the Supreme Court, and the papers say that the Whitewater case is becoming more and more like the Watergate case.It can be seen that as of today, there is no possibility of the president colluding with the Supreme Court. Even if the president nominates, the candidate for justice must be fully tested in all aspects.For example, Thomas, the first black justice, was accused of "sexual harassment" after being nominated. He went through a long congressional hearing, and finally voted by Congress. He was judged innocent by a majority vote before he was able to take office.After taking office, the chief justice must also "be upright and stand upright" in all aspects, otherwise this "lifelong" position may not be kept.This kind of "doing rightly and standing upright" does not only mean that he must abide by certain moral norms, but more importantly, it is the requirement for his legal level and impartiality. As I said earlier, the Supreme Court, represented by the justices, has no power to propose bills or pass legislation.However, they have the right to interpret the laws of the United States, especially the interpretation of the Constitution.Just as the power of interpretation is in their hands, so is the power to declare whether a bill or a decision of a district court is unconstitutional.The judgment is decided by voting among the nine justices. However, all justices, including those who disagree with a certain judgment, must write a comment on each bill or case they handle. , these comments are archived as historical files.Therefore, looking at the comments of these justices, we can not only understand the historical cases in the United States, but also see the progress of the United States' understanding of the Constitution. Every time you look at the comments of these US justices, you can see the power of thought, wisdom and reason.You can see that at different historical stages, American justices were also subject to different historical constraints, but they have tried their best to think rationally within the scope of what they could do.This is not only because their own reputation and future are at stake, but they also consider that they are often the ones who set the "rules of the game" in American society. Here, the "rules of the game" that Americans must abide by.The United States is a country, you will see it is very colorful and emotional on the surface.But at its root, you can find that it is a high degree of reason that governs and manages this country.At the same time, the openness of politics has basically made it out of the way of "conspiracy" to win. There is another very important factor that determines the openness of politics in the United States and the constraints on government power, and that is news supervision.We also found that the point of freedom of speech in the United States is not that a person can be protected in front of friends, in meetings, or even standing on the street to express his views directly, nor that he can safely write his truth in diary letters. Feelings, but can express their opinions in public publications, this is a further freedom of the press.Its key is the pre-check-free system.This brings me back to an episode of the Oklahoma bombing. The efficiency of news in the United States can be seen in this bombing case.When the explosion happened, a female reporter from a radio station happened to come near the accident site.As soon as she stopped the car, she heard a loud noise, and then saw the entire glass window of a church not far ahead fly out, and the broken glass rained down on the roof of her car.Her first reaction was: Oh my God!The gas tank in this church exploded.But when she got out of the car, she found that the federal building a little further away was emitting thick smoke.She immediately realized that this was the real source of the explosion.The professional sensitivity of the journalist made her rush back to the car and pick up her mobile phone. While running to the scene of the accident, she yelled at the radio station: "Let me broadcast! Let me broadcast!" After reporting, researching and discussing, the normal broadcasting was interrupted immediately, and the mobile phone of the female reporter was connected to broadcast her live report.So, she still doesn't know what happened, how can she report it?It's very simple, she just pays what she sees.She started by telling everyone what she saw of the flames and smoke at the federal building, and then as she approached the scene, she reported casualties, provided emergency services, and interviewed witnesses.That is to say, at the same time as the incident happened, a very detailed report was broadcast on the radio simultaneously.When I heard this passage, I really admired the journalistic quality of this female reporter.Calm down and think about it, to be honest, if the person on duty in the radio station did not connect her immediately, wouldn't she have "quality" in vain?But how could the person on duty be able to pick it up regardless of the situation?This is the role of the US news exemption system.In American broadcast TV, there is only one kind of regulation similar to preflight and restriction, and that is "5 second lag".What's going on here?When we watch TV and listen to the radio here, we sometimes hear the sound of a "pipe" and interrupt it for a few seconds. This is because when we are listening, it is 5 seconds later than the actual broadcast.These 5 seconds are reserved for the pre-check.The sound of the "flute" means that the pre-screening person discovered the problem, interrupted the broadcast, and "restricted" the sentence that could not be broadcast.It's kind of funny, because although no one heard the erased sentence, everyone knew what it was.Because of the person guarding there for pre-screening, he only has the right to erase a sentence.You must be curious, right?What is that?It's actually quite simple, it's a well-known swear word. When it comes to this 5-second lag preflight limit, it's not a law, it's a rule of the Federal Communications Commission, which governs radio and television.This regulation is not long, and it originated from Madonna, a famous American singer who is well known in China.Everyone knows that she is a guy who is amazing and can't stop talking.During a live-streamed interview, the famous swearword rolled out of her mouth, leaving everyone feeling overwhelmed.Therefore, this "five-second lag" was created.However, I still want to add that in the United States, "tolerance" can always only be the cause of a proposal, and it can never be the basis for a proposal to be established.Just like the "Klan Klan" story I told last time, between the blacks and the Ku Klux Klan, they feel mutual intolerance, which may be the motivation for them to propose banning each other's speech, but it does not mean that this proposal Therefore it can be established. Freedom of speech is a person's right to speak, but there is one thing, that is, you cannot force others to listen, that is to say, you cannot infringe others.Therefore, in American movies, there can be swear words in the video tapes played on TV. For example, in the famous Vietnam War movies we saw in the United States, in order to show the real situation of soldiers on the battlefield at that time, swear words were used in them. The frequency of occurrence is high.In the opening title, there are notices for offenses, violence, etc. according to regulations. If you don’t want to watch it, you can choose not to watch it.Just like KKK programs, people who hate him have the right not to watch this channel, and this does not constitute infringement.However, watching and listening to live programs, people really cannot predict and prevent Madonna's profanity violations. Therefore, there is a "5-second lag" rule that has recently been generally accepted. The history of exempting news from pre-screening and restrictions in the United States is very long.Generally speaking, both the government and the opposition have reached a consensus very early on.Therefore, there are very few lawsuits against the official news restriction by the people, but once an official request for news restriction occurs, it is always a big enough case to cause shock.Let's take another interesting example, you will definitely be surprised.Sometimes I really feel that this country is incredible. Its diverse races and rich content make you feel that it is a book that you can never finish reading. It often surprises you unexpectedly. You may be here because Disappointed for various reasons, but never because of monotony. It was about 15 years ago, and an American named Howard Moran wrote an article, which was very attractive from the beginning. "What you're about to learn is a secret—a highly guarded secret by the United States and four other hydrogen bomb-producing nations." "I discovered this secret only by reading and asking questions, without using any classified material..." "Why didn't I tell you?... Don't be afraid, I'm not trying to help you build a hydrogen bomb. You are far from capable, unless you control the government of a medium-sized country." "Not because I want India, Israel, or South Africa, or Pakistan to get the hydrogen bomb from me sooner, although the information is useful to them..." "I speak of this secrecy in order to establish as forcefully as possible a fundamental point: that in the atomic age, the very keeping of secrecy created a political climate which helped to keep the production of those dreadful weapons protected and This is especially true when it comes to keeping authoritative secrets that a few experts consider off-limits.” This is not a joke.The author of the article was an anti-nuclear activist. The article, titled "The Secret of the Hydrogen Bomb," was going to be published in a magazine called "Progress." It was planned to be the cover story of the April 1979 issue of the magazine.This is a monthly magazine published in Madison, Washington.It was founded in 1909, and its founder was the governor of Washington State, a member of Congress, and also ran for president on behalf of the "Progressive Party".The newspaper has a circulation of about 3,000 to 4,000 copies in the United States.Its purpose is: against militarism and war, emphasizing civil rights and civil liberties, emphasizing the protection of the environment, and questioning the actions of large groups. A year ago, they changed an executive editor. This person used to edit the "Briefing of Atomic Scientists". Articles for the Nuclear Weapons Industry.He's already posted articles like "The Kindest Man Is Building the A-Bomb."During his research work, he met Walder Moran. Walder Moran's hometown is close to the world famous American nuclear physics base---Oak Ridge.This place name is definitely no stranger to physics students in China.He said that in other places, children may ask: You are so smart, why didn't you get rich?在他的家乡，孩子们就会问：你这么聪明，怎么没去当个核物理学家？橡树岭云集了世界一流的核物理科学家，如果这是在中国，也许有很多人，会因为自己的家乡是世界著名的科学基地而自豪，但是瓦德.莫兰却只觉得是核阴影在笼罩着他的家乡。在美国，反核的情绪越来越强烈，持有这一类观点的人非常多。尤其是在新一代的美国年轻人中间，你很难找到一个为自己国家所拥有的最先进核武器和核威力感到自豪的。 瓦德.莫蓝在读大学的时候选修过不少物理方面的课程，但是他放弃了当物理学家的念头。他参加空军，开着运输机飞行在美越之间。在此期间，他有机会看到了氢弹，它只不过六到八英尺长，一英尺半的直径，这么小的摸样，却有一千倍于广岛原子弹的威力，这个概念使他深感可怕。他想：这玩意儿可是很容易被误用滥用的。他又想起了自己小时候对氢弹的兴趣。他不仅要知道这国家干吗要造这玩意儿，还想知道是怎么造出来的。知其然，必须知其所以然，这是他的思维习惯。所以，当他参加反核活动的同时，他很自然地把精力都投入了研究核技术之中。 他和“进步”杂志一拍即合是很自然的，他们都质疑政府对核技术保密的合理合法性。他们认为保密的目的，只是为了把美国人民排除在对核武器的讨论之外。所以，他揭开核秘密的行程就这样开始了。从他探索的整个过程来看，一方面，当然，他是个很聪明的家伙；另一方面，我们也看到，美国对于这方面的工厂，设施等等的保密，实际上是漏洞非常多的。不管怎么说，他越来越接近了关键的概念。最终，据他所说，他发现这早已不是什么秘密。任何一个人，只要具备基本的物理知识，再加上时间和坚持，都可以找到氢弹的秘密。 瓦德.莫蓝坚持说，他所有的材料来自公开发表的资料，以及他和一些原子能工作者的谈话，他只是自己动脑筋把所有的材料拼凑起来，破了这个迷。他还认为，他所介绍的氢弹制造原理根本不会带来什么威胁：“这距离画出一张氢弹蓝图来还有很远呢。”再说，大多数国家不论财力或技术力量，都还不到造氢弹的水平。最后，他还解释，他所介绍的东西早已散见在各种公开读物上，他所做的事，只不过是把它们拼凑在一起。 在文章发表之前，一个警惕的教授把它送到了美国能源部。当时能源部负责防御计划的付部长是塞威尔，核武器保密就归他管。这是他第一次从“外面”拿到这样的氢弹资料。他拿给有关当局的最高层领导看了之后，他们一致认为，不仅文章中的一些资料是应该保密的，那份杂志的发行也是有害的。他们把这事儿转到了司法部，要求他们把“进步”给停了。 司法部一听就头皮发麻了，他们当然知道，这种事在美国可是麻烦大了：在宪法第一修正案之下，政府怎么能就说“停”就“停了”一份新闻刊物呢？我前面就说过了，这个国家，除了宪法，谁说了也不算。更何况，你一定也记得，为了纽约时报要发表美国五角大楼的越南战争秘密文件，前几年刚打过一场官司。由于输了这场官司，一些政府官员至今还觉得灰头土脸，十分窝囊。 对于新闻制度，寻找以前的案例的话，你可以找到一些对已经发表的不当新闻的惩罚规则。但是，对于美国人来讲，宪法第一修正案对新闻制度最根本的一点，就是预先不能限制。可是，如今是事关比原子弹还要命的氢弹，是一个谁也没有遇到过的新问题。司法部长遇到了前所未有的压力，只有硬着头皮上。这个案件已经把美国的言论自由问题推向了核时代。一开始，“进步”杂志的编辑就知道情况不妙，政府已经全力以赴，一个小小杂志，力量对比相差太悬殊了。 1979年3月2日，美国能源部副部长塞威尔领着能源部和司法部的官员，来到了“进步”杂志社。编辑坚持说，文章的来源是公开的读物。他们要知道，这篇文章到底哪部分应该保密？塞威尔说，回答你这个问题的答案都是保密的。但是能源部提出可以帮他们重写，然后再让他们发表。考虑了几天之后，他们通过律师回答，他们不打算修改，他们有宪法第一修正案所保护的权利，有权按原样发表。 三百年前，这里的新闻预检制已经被废除了。宪法第一修正案起草出来之后，有过关于新闻自由和侵犯隐私权之间的争论，但是，有关禁止预检却很少有人提出过疑议，所以这类的官司也很少，最高法院判决的第一个此类重要案子是在1931年的“尼尔案件”，最高法院在该案中指出：“(新闻自由)的主要意图就是防止对出版物的预先限制。”也就是说，即使是对于滥用新闻出版自由的人，也只能在事后，即出版之后适当惩罚，而不能预先阻止他出版。在1964年的沙利文案中，最高法院又作出了深刻承诺：“公众辩论的发行应该是无禁区的，坚定蓬勃的，以及完全开放的。”有关新闻和国家安全，美国的开国者之一，托马斯.杰弗逊认为：“最终的安全是在新闻自由之中。”我想，他的意思是说，当一切都是公开的，一切都在全民的监督之下，就不再有阴谋，就可以最大限度地减少腐败，可能发生的错误决策将会尽早地被纠正，这样的国家，它的安全才是有保证的。这样的观点，在美国很早就被大家所接受。但是，杰弗逊的时代还没有氢弹。 因此，“进步”杂志案作为一个前所未有的“核时代案件”，它不仅是在向第一修正案的基本信念挑战，而且，还提出了这样的问题：新闻界在决定公众辩论所采取的形式时，是否也是“无禁区”的。 “进步”的编辑克诺尔对这样的问题是一个持绝对肯定观点的人。有人问他，如果有个喝醉了的海军官员，把他第二天要出发攻打黎巴嫩的保密消息讲给你听了，你也发表吗？他回答说，政府如果不向国会宣布就打算去参与战争，我当然要发表。另一个问题，如果你知道一个美国在国外的情报人员的名字，你也发表吗？他说，那得看他在干什么了，如果这家伙以美国的名义，用着纳税人的钱，却在人家那里挖民主的墙脚，我当然要让每一个人都知道。那么，如果这将危及他的生命呢？克诺尔回答说，这是他的工作，情报人员当然有被人家杀了的思想准备，这就和工伤的性质是一样的。 问题的关键不在于某一个编辑想发什么和不想什么消息，也不在于应该和不应该发什么消息，关键在于，他认为发表的决定权应该在他的手里，而不是在美国政府手里。美国最高法院的多数大法官，一直不同意这种绝对主义的观点，主要的疑点就是国家安全。但是，他们似乎也只是提出这个两难问题，并没有能够解决。 正因为新闻自由的主要原则在美国深入人心，所以，我提到过，政府和新闻界之间的官司很少。从前面提到的1931年“尼尔案件”到这个“进步”杂志案之间，美国政府与新闻界只打过四场官司。美国政府也在尽量避免这种事情，但是，一旦出现这样的罕见情况，也就是说，到了美国政府迫不得已非要去惹这个麻烦不可的时候，案子总是十分急迫，法律程序的通过也比一般情况要快得多，也就常常会留下一大堆值得争议的问题。 我们前面已经提到过“五角大楼”案件，这是由于“纽约时报”和“华盛顿邮报”要公布一批有关美国卷入越战的五角大楼秘密文件而发生的。在这个案件中，短短的几星期里，各级法院就产生了种种不同意见。一个首席法官甚至由于进程过快而拒绝对案件引起的一些问题作出判断。最后，法院是以6票比3票的结果，反对美国政府限制这两家报纸发表这些秘密文件。这是对这个具体案件的判决，并不能解决所有的有关国家安全与新闻自由关系的问题。参照这个案件，也不能使“进步”杂志案的答案就更清楚。 在“五角大楼”案中，有两位最高法院的大法官提出，他们认为，在如下情况下，也许政府可以以国家安全为由，预先限制新闻发表，即政府必须证明“这种发表将无可避免地，直接地，立刻地导致危害，这种危害必须类似威胁已经发航的运输船的安全。”可是，谁又能说得上，对于热核武器该怎么定义"直接和立刻"的危害呢？说到底，以往的规则都无法解决核时代的案件。 另一方面，“进步”杂志则辩称，在科学的领域，哪怕是热核科学的领域，所谓国家安全与新闻自由的“两难问题”更为简单。他们认为，整个旧的安全概念在此领域都行不通。他们引用了爱因斯坦的一段话：“通过原子能的释放，我们这一代给这个世界带来了自人类历史发明火以来最具变革性的力量。这个宇宙的基本能量，已经不再适合可以被抛弃的狭窄民族主义的概念。因为，现在已经谈不上保密，也谈不上防卫了。这一切都已经无法控制，除非能够唤醒人类的良知和坚韧。” “进步”杂志还找了一些权威的核科学家支持他们。不少专家并不同意他们发表文章的理由，他们觉得讨论核武器的伦理问题，并不一定要提供制造它的技术资料，甚至他们也看不上瓦德.莫蓝的科学知识，他们之所以支持杂志社，是因为觉得文章的内容已经算不上是秘密，发表并不会有什么害处。 但是，美国政府出动了国务院，能源部，防卫部和主要的核武器设计实验室的专家，他们宣布，如果该文章出版，“会有损美国的安全，会帮助外国发展热核武器，会增加热核战争的危险。”尽管美国政府上一次打输了“五角大楼”的官司。但是他们觉得，这一次可不是上一次，他们手里还有一个绝招---在1954年，美国国会曾经通过了一个“原子能条例”。这是处理非正常情况的非常规条例，是美国极少几个特别授权美国政府可以进行新闻预禁的法规之一。 该条例规定，美国政府可以起诉并要求法院禁止任何人揭示“限定资料”。“限定资料”包括核武器的设计，工厂，设备，或特殊核材料的生产……。但是，不包括已经解密和已经被划出“限定”范围的资料。美国政府宣称，这种资料生来就是保密的。不管是一个政府雇员从实验室得到，还是一个公民作在自己家里想出来的，不论是设计，公式，还是一个念头，只要一产生，就是保密的。所以，哪怕瓦德.莫蓝拿出证据，他百分之一百的资料都是从公开出版物上抄下来的，但是，只要他把它们凑在一起，结果就是保密的，除非美国政府同意宣布这不是秘密。该条例还有犯罪处罚规定。在当时，揭示“限定资料”的处罚，是一万美元以下的罚款，或十年以下监禁，也可以同时并罚。 这案件一旦归到“原子能条例”下面，就成了一个暗箱。瓦德.莫蓝的辩护人在保密的挡箭牌下，不能知道有关此案的几乎一切信息。被告也无法回答面前的一大堆问题。任何试图被引进法庭的证据，都有一个保密的陷阱等在那里。例如，瓦德.莫蓝为了证明自己的资料来自公开读物，他拿来一本自己的大学教科书，政府说，他在教科书上划的线必须擦掉才可以拿出来，尽管这些线只是他读大学准备考试时划的。他又拿出一些杂志文章，一个记者后来报道说，他拿出来东西的都被司法部宣称是秘密的，指出文章哪一部分是秘密的行为本身，是秘密的；争论它是不是秘密的争论，是秘密的；法庭对于这些秘密的看法，也是秘密的。这里有件很有趣的事情。新闻检查制度这个字眼，在美国是份量很重的，或者说，是很难听的，所以当“进步”杂志社在法庭上指责美国政府是新闻预禁的时候，政府的一些人提出抗议，他们说，他们的律师说的，这不是“检查”，这只能称作是"删除"。“进步”的编辑克诺尔就说，你就是把它叫做香蕉奶油甜点心我都不在乎，可是它还是新闻检查制度。 正是意识到这一点，该案的法官心情很不轻松。他写道：“如果发出一张初步的强制令，据本庭所知，这将是这个国家历史上，用新闻检查制度禁止出版的第一个实例。这种声名狼藉的事情是大家都不愿意看到的。”1979年3月26日，法官发表了他的看法。首先他指出，这个案子与“五角大楼案”不同，后者只是国家行政部门站在自己的立场上企图阻止新闻发布，而这个案子，有国会已经通过的“原子能条例”授权禁止。他认为，这个在宪法第一修正案之下的条例是清楚的，范围是适度的。再说，相比之下，“五角大楼案”只牵涉到3至20年以前的“历史资料”，这个案子则不同。最后，他主要是注意到了这个案子的巨大风险。他说，也许，从长久的意义来说，不自由，勿宁死。但是从眼前看，我们只有在拥有活下去的自由这个前提下，才有可能享受到言论自由，宗教自由，新闻自由等等。也就是说，把氢弹秘密“放出去”之后，没准大家连活得成活不成都成了问题。他写道，“如果作出一个反对美国的裁定，这一错误将为我们所有的人铺平通向热核毁灭的道路。在这个案子里，我们生的权利受到威胁，出版的权利变得可以商榷。”法官“遗憾”地签下了这份预禁令。 这个案子是不是很有意思？我想，这个法官的判决是很能理解的，谁敢冒这样的风险呢？但是这个案子里确实暴露出许多很耐琢磨的问题。例如，在这个“进步”杂志案中所出现的“暗箱问题”，就是很值得深思的。当一名被告所被控的一切都变成了“秘密”，甚至他的律师，法官，陪审团都不能清楚地了解与案情有关的细节，在这种情况下，怎么还有可能进行一场“公平的审判”，被告的权利还怎么可能得到保护呢？这也是我前面提到过的，美国的“反恐怖法”草案引起巨大争议的原因之一。 立法反对恐怖活动当然是一件好事情，问题是具体的做法，也就是“反恐怖”究竟怎么“反”法。例如，将来出现在美国的恐怖活动，其中很可能有一些是类似纽约世界贸易中心爆炸案这样的国际恐怖主义活动，对罪犯起诉的证据也就有可能来自美国之外。因此“反恐怖法”草案允许在对国际恐怖主义份子起诉时，使用来自国外的证据，并且允许作为证人的美国驻国外情报人员不出庭，以免使美国在国外的情报网不受到破坏。乍一听，这似乎没有什么不合理的。但是，这些恐怖主义者很可能就象在纽约爆炸案中的被告一样，他们尽管是在为另一个国家服务，可他们中的一些人已经是美国公民，即使不是美国公民，在美国法庭审理，就必须给他们一个公平审判，就不能剥夺他们受美国宪法保护的权利。比如说，我以后还会提到的宪法第六修正案中所规定的，被告有权面对自己的证人。审理中的“暗箱”在美国是违宪的。 当“反恐怖法”草案在参院通过以后，我们在电视里看到一次非常有意思的辩论。它是由美国联邦调查局的高级官员，著名的美国公民自由联盟的负责人，著名的“纽约时报”专栏作家路易斯，大学教授等组成的，在一起讨论有关“反恐怖法”草案所牵涉到的种种问题。也谈到我们前面所提到的审判中的“暗箱”问题。总的来说，政府一方，尤其是联邦调查局负责具体工作的高级官员，都对于他们在工作中所受到的种种限制发出抱怨，在美国严格执行宪法的情况下，他们要对恐怖活动的嫌疑分子进行监视，却很难拿到一张窃听许可证。抓到什么罪犯，又由于种种原因，往往会起诉失败。他们坚持“反恐怖法”草案所放松的限制，对于美国的反恐怖活动是绝对必要的。但是，作为民权组织等属于“美国人民”和理性思维的另一方，却对于“反恐怖法”草案中有可能发展成侵犯公民权利的部分提出严重质疑。例如，“反恐怖法”草案的有关条例规定，如果一个美国公民向国际恐怖主义组织提供经费等等，就可以对他进行起诉。听上去很顺理成章。但是，民权组织马上提出了其中所隐含的问题。例如，美国政府宣布的国际恐怖主义组织的名单中，有著名的哈玛斯组织。这个组织确实在最近进行了一系列的炸弹攻击。但是，民权组织指出，哈玛斯不仅仅是一个恐怖组织，它同时也是一个宗教组织，在美国，完全有可能有一些公民只是在宗教上认同这个组织，在这种情况下，一个美国公民就有可能因为出于宗教的原因，向属于这个组织的医院捐了十块钱而受到“反恐怖法”的起诉，并且有可能因此而判刑，这显然是侵犯了公民宗教自由的宪法权利。在“反恐怖法”草案中，类似的问题还有很多。 使我们感到吃惊的，并不是一个“反恐怖法”草案所反映出来的问题，而是美国人对于所有的立法和案例所涉及到的公民自由和公民权利问题所持有的认真态度，惊叹他们的持久的顽强和理性的思索。在这个辩论中，美国公民自由联盟的负责人还提到美国在这一方面的历史教训。他提到，奥克拉荷马爆炸案之后，要提醒国会防止过度反应并不是无稽之谈。在二次大战美国在遭受到日本的珍珠港突袭之后，几乎海军全军覆没。在这种情况下，美国曾经作出过一次错误的过度反应。美国西海岸当时有十二万日裔的侨民，你也知道，一般来说，东方民族对于“故国家园”很难从根子上抛舍。更何况，这些日裔侨民里还有一些来到美国不久的新移民，两国交战，确使许多移民产生巨大的心理矛盾。同时，惊恐之中的美国政府，面对数量如此之大的来自敌国的移民，也觉得防不胜防。由于珍珠港事件是一场突袭，美国政府更担心这些日裔移民中会有人向其母国提供各种情报，从而导致美国在这场战争中的失败。 当时，在强大战争攻击的威胁之下，政府的权限也相对扩大。结果，由当时的美国总统罗斯福签署命令，把美国西海岸十二万日裔移民，包括已经加入美国籍的日裔美国人，全部圈入了落矶山脉东面的十个临时居住地，十二万人一宿之间全部失去自由。在这一天之前，他们中的很多人还在为支持美国的军队而努力工作。在被集中圈住的四年当中，甚至还有人在失去自由的情况下，收到为美国战斗的儿子的阵亡通知书。今天，当我们和美国朋友聊起这件事，他们都觉得这简直是无法想象的错误。但是，美国政府确实在战争的威胁下，曾经犯下过这样一个可怕的侵犯公民权利的历史错误。 当年的这十二万人中，有一个姓伊藤的年轻人在圈居生活中和一名共同命运的女孩相识。在他们恢复自由四年之后，他们组成家庭并给他们的新生儿起了个名字，他叫兰斯.艾伦.伊藤。艾伦这个名字，是为了纪念他们在失去自由期间，一个为他们看守房子的名叫艾伦的牧师。兰斯这个名字，则是为了纪念为他们向美国政府索赔的一个叫兰斯的律师。由于这个家庭的这一段经历，这个孩子立志长大以后要做法官，致力于保护平民百姓。他就是现在正在进行的“世纪大审判”辛普森案的主审法官。在以后的信里，我会一再向你提到这个名字。一向在审判中以冷静著称的伊藤法官，谈起美国的这一段历史却无法平静，他说，“这件事情的意义非常重大。我必须告诉大家，如果这件事情可能发生在你我身上，它就有可能发生在任何人身上”。 实际上，这就是美国人今天对待任何一个民权案件的基本态度。发生的任何一件侵犯公民权利的事件，他们的态度就是，它如果可能发生在一个美国公民身上，那么，它也就可能发生在我们自己身上。所以，在美国，对于这一类问题，会有很多人挺身而出。尽管他们和这一个公民并不相识，甚至，也许他们并不喜欢这个人。 从“进步”杂志案的发展你也可以看到美国人的这种态度。这个案子本身到这里并还没有结束，因为这只是地方法院的判决。“进步”杂志马上提出上诉，发誓要把官司一直打到最高法院。几个星期之后，事情发生了谁也无法料到的变化。这一回，你肯定猜不出结果来了。 我还是下次再给你写吧。 wish it is good! Linda