The Change in Selection of Senators and its Impact
- The demand for senators' direct elections has risen and it was changed in the 17th amendment in 1913.
- Despite the elimination of direct representation of state legislatures in the Senate, each state still has equal representation, which ensures their distinctive political voice.
- The change in the selection of Senators has sparked debates about the legitimacy and democratic nature of the Senate.
- ベストアンサー
英文についての質問です
What amendment changed the selection of Senators, when did that happen, and how are Senators now selected? という質問に対し、答えになりそうな箇所を探しました。 （参考にしたのは１段落目だけです。特に必要なければ２段落目は読んでいただかなくて大丈夫です。） As the country developed a stronger sense of national identity after the Civil War, and as claims of corruption in the selection of Senators grew, the demand for direct election of Senators grew. This was finally achieved with the 17th amendment in 1913. A minority of people still argue that this amendment was a mistake, and that an important check on the federal government was lost when the state legislatures’ representation in Congress was eliminated. But even though the state legislatures are no longer directly represented in the Senate, each state still has equal representation, and are so are still represented as distinct political bodies: Wyoming’s less than 600,000 people and California’s 40 million people have the same voice. Some people argue that this is undemocratic, and see the Senate as illegitimate, while others see it as important to ensure the small states are not dominated by a handful of big states. 答えは 「上院議員の直接選挙の要求が高まり、1913年の第１７回改正で変更された。」 The demand for senators' direct elections has risen and it was changed in the 17th amendment in 1913. でいいでしょうか？ よろしくお願いします。
- wxw
- お礼率89% (1045/1166)
- 英語
- 回答数1
- ありがとう数1
- みんなの回答 （1）
- 専門家の回答
質問者が選んだベストアンサー
以下のとおりお答えします。 部分的には正しいとお見受けしますが、欠落を補う必要があるかも知れません。 ＞答えは「上院議員の直接選挙の要求が高まり、1913年の第１７回改正で変更された。」 ＞The demand for senators' direct elections has risen and it was changed in the 17th amendment in 1913. でいいでしょうか？ ⇒has risen → had risenと変更して、The demand for senators' direct elections had risen and it was changed in the 17th amendment in 1913. とすれば、この部分の間違いはなくなりますが、教授のhow are Senators now selected?「現在、上院議員はどのように選出されますか」という問いに対する回答部分が欠落したままですね。 この欠落を補って、次のように答えることをお勧めします。 （回答例） 「それまで上院議員は各州議会が選出していたが、1913年までに直接選挙の要求が高まり、その年の第17回改正でそのように、つまり、直接選挙に変更された。」 ＝Until then, although the Senators were elected by the state councils, the demand for direct elections increased by 1913 and the system was changed to that way in the 17th amendment of that year, that is, to the direct election.
関連するQ&A
- 英文質問 その２
When designing Congress, what kind of representation did the small states want? What kind did the big states want? という質問に対して該当する文章を探しています。 As the country developed a stronger sense of national identity after the Civil War, and as claims of corruption in the selection of Senators grew, the demand for direct election of Senators grew. This was finally achieved with the 17th amendment in 1913. A minority of people still argue that this amendment was a mistake, and that an important check on the federal government was lost when the state legislatures’ representation in Congress was eliminated. But even though the state legislatures are no longer directly represented in the Senate, each state still has equal representation, and are so are still represented as distinct political bodies: Wyoming’s less than 600,000 people and California’s 40 million people have the same voice. Some people argue that this is undemocratic, and see the Senate as illegitimate, while others see it as important to ensure the small states are not dominated by a handful of big states. こちらの文章の１段落目を参考にしたのですが、 質問に対して、small stateは州議会の議論を求めている。ということでいいでしょうか？ そして２段落目では、big stateはsmall stateが数の少ないbig stateを支配しないことを求めている。 ということでいいでしょうか？
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文についての質問です
How did the Convention agree to have Senators selected?という質問がありました。 The Convention soon moved toward appointment by state legislatures, a move opposed by Madison and Hamilton, who wanted to weaken the state legislatures. But to their dismay, in the end the Convention settled on equal representation of each state in the Senate with each state’s legislators choosing its Senators. This meant that the Senate didn’t just represent the states as political bodies, but that it literally represented the state legislatures. The House belonged to the people; the Senate belonged to their state governments. 回答はここに出てくる「in the end the Convention settled on equal representation of each state in the Senate with each state’s legislators choosing its Senators. 」 からの文章をそのまま引用して The convention settled on equal representation of each state in the Senate with each state's legislators choosing its Senators. でいいでしょうか？ よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文についての質問です。
What was the 3/5 compromise?という質問に対しての回答を探しました。 The southern states wanted their slaves to be counted. Their purpose was simply to maximize their influence in the new government. Virginia had 500,00022 free people and 300,000 slaves. South Carolina had 140,000 free people and just over 100,000 slaves. The other southern states had 1/3 or more of their total population as slaves. The northern states, by contrast, were critical of slavery and had fewer slaves in their population. Pennsylvania had 430,000 free people, but less than 4,000 slaves. Massachusetts was the second largest state with 475,000 people, but had no slaves. These northern states objected that the southern states treated slaves as property, to citizens, so it was inappropriate to count them at all for purposes of representation. ＊ In the end they compromised on including 3⁄5 of a state’s slaves in determining their population for determining how many Representatives they would get in the House. つまり最後の文章の、「国の奴隷の３／５を含めた住民数で、人口を決定することに妥協した。これがThe 3⁄5 Compromiseだ。」ということでいいでしょうか？
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文質問 その１
When designing Congress, what kind of representation did the small states want? What kind did the big states want? という質問に対して該当する文章を探しています。 自分でもいらないと思う箇所は切って、だいぶ短くしたつもりですが、それでもかなり長いので質問を分けさせていただきました。 （その２では同じ質問に対して他の文章を引用しています。だいぶ英文が長くなりそうだったので２つに分けさせていただきました。ややこしくてすみません。） But defining the structure of Congress was by far the bitterest fight in the Convention, pitting the large states against the small, and bringing them almost to the point of breaking up. The Confederation Congress was unicameral and each state had an equal vote. The Virginia Plan proposed to create a bicameral legislature, and to eliminate equal representation of states by giving each a number of representatives proportional to their population. Madison believed that the states’ obsession with their own local interests were the cause of the union’s problems, and believed that the new government had to represent the people of the United States to limit the bad influence of the states. ＜しかしsmall stateはアメリカの４大州だけで人口の大部分を占めていることを指摘した。＞ In response a large state delegate noted that there were more small than large states, so if they stuck with equal representation the small ones could oppress the larger. ＊＊ ＜＞内は自分で訳せたので英文を省きました。 ・つまりバージニア計画では2つの立法府を創設し、それぞれに人口に比例した多数の代表者を与えることによって、州の平等な代表をなくす、という計画だったが、small stateはそれに反対した。 big(large) stateとは人口数がかなり異なるため。 in response以降なのですが、「それに答えて（対抗して）large stateは～」ということだと思うのですが、 ここではどういうことが言われているのでしょうか？ ・自分の要約があっているか ・in response以降を簡単で結構ですので訳して欲しいです。 よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文についての質問です
What is the “habit of compliance”?という質問があるのですがそれに該当する文を引用しました。 （引用文が長くて申し訳ないです。訳していただかなくて大丈夫です） Whether we can philosophically justify it or not, the state is an institution of violence, and yet most often people do not revolt. As a practical matter, it is this acquiescence that political scientists call legitimacy. [Indeed this acquiescence is the primary reason people obey laws, not out of fear of punishment. ] [This “habit of compliance,” as political scientists call it,stems from people viewing the laws as legitimate enactments of the state. ] And their view of state legitimacy may itself be primarily a habit, or it may be based on their perceptions of whether they are getting sufficient benefits in exchange for the price the state extracts from them. In any case, it is rarely a considered philosophical conclusion. そして質問に対する答えです。[]内が該当する文章かな、と思いそれに基づいて英文を作りました。 ・Hibit of compliance is acquiescence that the people abey laws. It is that political scientists considers it the laws as legistimate enactments of the state. これらの回答は質問に対する答えになっているでしょうか？ また、こちらの英文も添削して欲しいです。 よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文の和訳お願いしたいです
On March 26th, 2013 when President Obama signed H.R. 933 into law over the objections of more than 250,000 farmers and citizens from Food Democracy Now!, millions of people around the globe were outraged and the previously unknown provision gained worldwide attention. The outrage has become so intense, that Senators Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), the Chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee was forced to issue an apology, something almost unheard of in DC politics and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) has courageously offered an amendment to repeal the Monsanto Protection Act during the recent farm bill debate.
- 締切済み
- 英語
- 英文の邦訳をお願いします。
Both Germany and France are preferred destinations of TSOEs. Besides being active transnational owners, the core European countries seem to attract state capital systematically and thus form “hubs” for transnational state investment. ＜This is in line with recent observations that German and French policymakers show high interest and support for overseas SWF investments in their economies as a source of patient capital (and portfolio investment was not even included in the analysis, something that would probably have strengthened the tendency).＞ 上記英文の特に最後のsomething以下が特に良く分かりません。＜＞内をお訳しいただけますようお願い致します。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文チェックをお願いします・
以下の英文の添削をお願いできますでしょうか？ I took part in volunteer work in Tohoku where I was searching for missing people from the horrible earthquake which happened a year and a half ago. There are still over 2800people who have not been found. I had to have a feeling of helplessness when I saw the horrible scars of the disaster, but it is a reality that there are still a lot of people who lost their family and have to continue to live in the scares. I think it is an important to find missing people as soon as possible so that the family of them will be able to take a step toward recovery. （原文） 1年半前に発生した地震による行方不明者を捜索するためのボランティア活動に参加してきました。今なお2800名以上の方々が行方不明となっています。 災害のすさまじい爪痕を見て、私は自分の無力さを感じざるを得ませんでした。でも、家族を失って、その爪痕の中で生活を続けている方々がいるのも現実なんですよね。 行方不明者のご家族の方々が復興の一歩を踏み出せるようにするためにも、一日も早く行方不明者を見つけることが重要だと感じています。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 次の英文の和訳をよろしくお願いします。
次の英文の和訳をよろしくお願いします。 After all,the Stone Age people who produced the brilliant cave paintings in what is now Spain and France were as tall as we are,as handsome,as intelligent,and as artistic.And that was twenty-five thousand years ago.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文の邦訳
The described and attributed strategies of states as owners in the global network of state capital are a first step in this direction: we develop this contribution by distinguishing broadly between state strategies that show a clear interest in financial returns on investment (and thus more adaptation to transnational capitalism), and others that predominantly seek to control the firms they invest their state capital in (and thus carry the potential for a more state-controlled form of global expansion). Our results hence implicate that tackling the question of adaptation or challenge need to be answered at the level of state strategies. 上記英文のラストのOur以下を御訳しください。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
お礼
文章を補っていただきありがとうございます。 そして、添削もありがとうございます。 確かにご指摘いただいたようにhow are Senators now selected?が欠けていますね…。 大変参考になりました！ ありがとうございます。