- ベストアンサー
Has history shown that separation of powers is necessary to protect liberty?
Nakay702の回答
＞Yes, Montesquieu suggested that there is no freedom unless the judiciary power be not separated from legislative and executive. ⇒そうですね、これでいいと思います。 次のように言うと、「より普遍的な事実」として述べている感じが表わせますね。 Yes, it has been shown, for example, by Montesquieu that there is no freedom unless the judiciary power is not separated from legislative and executive. ＝「はい、例えばMontesquieuによって、司法権が立法権や行政権から分離されなければ、自由はない、ということが示されて（きて）います。」
noname#232424
関連するQ&A
- 英文についての質問です。
To prevent anyone from getting too much control over any part of the federal government’s power, each branch was given some share in the other branches’ powers. This is called what? という質問があり、それに該当するであろう文章を探しました。 かなり長く申し訳ないです。 一段落目の最後の☆マークのところを参考にしました。 特に不要でしたら全文読んでいただかなくても大丈夫です。 The powers of the three branches are not, however, entirely separate. The President plays a role in the legislative process, authorized to propose legislation, and given the veto. The President appoints ambassadors, judges, and executive branch officials, and negotiates treaties with other countries, but the Senate has the final say on all that. The great presidential scholar Richard Neustadt went so far as to say that the Constitution didn’t really have separation of powers at all, but “separated institutions sharing powers.” ＜☆＞ The purpose of these shared powers, however, was still to act as a constraint on tyranny. They didn’t want anyone to have too much power, but they also didn’t want anyone to have too much control over their own power. Madison argued that the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachment by others. The constitutional means were these checks and balances of shared powers, while the personal motive was simply jealousy of power. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” Madison argued. あまり自信がないのですが、答えは「separated institutions sharing powers」でしょうか？（☆マークのところです。） もしくは見当はずれの文章を引用している可能性もあります。 全然違うこと言ってるよ、などあればそちらを指摘していただきたいです。 （この以下の文に答えがあるかと自分で訳して読みましたが、特にそれらしきものは見つけられませんでした。） 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
What does it mean to say the U.S. doesn't have separation of powers, but separated institutions sharing powers? とこのような質問があります。 長いので必要なければ全文読んでいただかなくて大丈夫です。 ＊＊以降の文章を参考にしました。 The powers of the three branches are not, however, entirely separate. The President plays a role in the legislative process, authorized to propose legislation, and given the veto. The President appoints ambassadors, judges, and executive branch officials, and negotiates treaties with other countries, but the Senate has the final say on all that. ＊＊ The great presidential scholar Richard Neustadt went so far as to say that the Constitution didn’t really have separation of powers at all, but “separated institutions sharing powers.” 回答は It means that the Constitution didn't really have separation of powers at all. 「それは憲法が本当に権力を分離していたわけではないという意味だ」 でいいでしょうか？ （that以下をそのまま引用しました） もし質問に対して的外れな回答だったり、回答の英文がおかしかったら指摘していただければと思います。 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
What is the purpose of dividing up, or fragmenting, political authority the way the delegates to the Convention did? という質問があります。 かなり長いので飛ばしていただいて大丈夫かと思います。 一応参考にしたのは＊＊の間の文章です。 After fragmenting political authority by delegating an enumerated set of powers to the federal government, then dividing the federal government into separated branches sharing just enough powers to provide checks and balances on each other, the Convention fragmented power one more time, dividing the legislative power between two chambers of the new Congress. ＊＊ By requiring agreement between the two chambers to pass legislation, they created an internal check on the legislative power. ＊＊ The gridlock Americans often complain about today is not an indication that our system is failing; it is the natural outcome of the Framers’ intentional fragmentation of political authority, both the internal legislative check of needing bicameral agreement and the check imposed by the presidential veto. この質問による回答はこの文をそのまま引用して By requiring agreement between the two chambers to pass legislation, they created an internal check on the legislative power. （法律を可決するために2つの裁判所の合意を要求することによって、彼らは立法権の内部調査を製作（作った）した。） こちらでいいでしょうか？ 英文で言っていることと的外れなこと回答をしていたら指摘して欲しいです。 よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文に関しての質問です
8. Did James Madison propose separation between Congress and President? という質問があります。 それに該当する部分を探しました。 But they did not want a king – with the likely exception of Alexander Hamilton – so Madison proposed a president instead. They avoided uniting powers in the same body of men by creating three distinct branches of government. The judiciary power was made independent of the others by giving federal judges a lifetime appointment and by prohibiting Congress from reducing their pay. Although they are nominated by the President, and have to be approved by the Senate, as soon as a person enters the federal judiciary, they are free from direct political influence (but they can be impeached and removed from office for misbehavior). ＊ Separating the presidency from the legislature was a little more complicated. The Virginia Plan proposed that the president be chosen by the legislature, but nothing more than that. It was not clear the executive would be separate from the legislature. 英文が長くて申し訳ないです。（＊は私がわかりやすくするために勝手に印をつけました。文章は特に省略などしていないです） ＊以降の文章にSeparating the presidency from the legislature とありますが、これは上の質問を同じことでしょうか？（presidentとcongress） ということは答えはYesでいいでしょう？
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文解釈
英文解釈なのですが、 If we human beings were all the same, then there would be no point in liberty; what would be good for one would be good for all. It is human variety － the fact that one man's meat is another man's poison － that imposes upon us the duty of preserving individual liberty. という文なのですが、文構造は大体分かるのですが、全体でいったいどういうことを言っているのかが、頭の中でちゃんと整理できません。 この文の趣旨を教えていただければ、と思います。よろしくお願いいたします。
- 締切済み
- 英語
- 英文和訳
And should we defeat every enemy, and should we double our wealth and conquer the stars, and still be unequal to this issue, then we will have failed as a people and as a nation. For, with a country as with a person, "what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only an American problem.This was the first nation in the history of the world to be founded with a purpose. The great phrases of that purpose still sound in every American heart, North and South: "All men are created equal." "Government by consent of the governed." "Give me liberty or give me death." And those are not just clever words, and those are not just empty theories. In their name Americans have fought and died for two centuries and tonight around the world they stand there as guardians of our liberty risking their lives. Those words are promised to every citizen that he shall share in the dignity of man. This dignity cannot be found in a man's possessions. It cannot be found in his power or in his position. It really rests on his right to be treated as a man equal in opportunity to all others. It says that he shall share in freedom. He shall choose his leaders, educate his children, provide for his family according to his ability and his merits as a human being. To apply any other test, to deny a man his hopes because of his color or race or his religion or the place of his birth is not only to do injustice, it is to deny Americans and to dishonor the dead who gave their lives for American freedom. どなたかお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文の意味を教えてください
And yet I say to you with all my purity, ＊there shall be that which is present and that which remains the same as my love dawns within you.＊ ＊～＊の意味がよくわからないのですが、お教えください。 このyetは、「さらに」という意味でしょうか？
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文についての質問です。
If we were to make contact with extraterrestrial civilizations, what might we expect them to like, and be like? What could we learn about them from their aesthetics? Whereas most people foresee great scientific advances flowing from contacts with advanced extraterrestrials, we shall discover that the greatest gains might turn out to be quite different. It is also tempting to adopt a variety of cosmic ageism, which has great expectations about long-lived extraterrestrials. Given world enough and time, we confidently expect them to get closer and closer to uncovering all there is to know about what makes the Universe tick. This optimism may be displaced. If you want to understand the Universe, intelligence and longevity may not be enough. Our own scientific development will be seen to hinge upon a number of extraordinary coincidences about our environment and our view of the sky. (The artful universe by J.D.Barrow） 中間ぐらいにある、 Given world enough and time, we confidently expect them to get closer and closer to uncovering all there is to know about what makes the Universe tick. の英文の構造がよくわかりません。 1) 出だしが過去分詞のGiven～で始まっているのですが、Given world enough and timeはどのように意味を取るのでしょうか？ 2) enoughがworld and timeの間に入っているのですが、world and time enoughにはならないのでしょうか？ 3）we confidently expect them to get closer and closer to uncovering allのto get closer and closer toは、～へますます近付く、の意味ですか？そうなると uncoveringの品詞は何になるのでしょうか？allを修飾しているのでしょうか？ 4）all there is to know about what makes the Universe tick.がよくわかりません。 (there is~以下がallにかかるという構造ですか？） there is to do～はbe動詞+to不定詞構文ですか？ だとすると何用法になるのでしょうか？（予定、義務、可能、など） 意味を取るとどうなりますか？ よろしくお願いいたします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文についての質問
What is the structure of the federal judiciary? という問題があるのですが Article III of the Constitution specifies “[t]he judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” Congress has established such courts from time to time, and collectively they are known as the federal court system, which consist of three levels. そのあとに、U.S. District Courts→U.S. Circuit Courts→At the top is one Supreme Courtとあるのですが、 この上の３つの裁判所は、質問に対する答えになるでしょうか？
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- liberty と freedom
Bush大統領の就任式の演説を聞いた時に freedom や liberty を繰り返し使っていました。C-SPANより 例えば In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.・・・ Liberty will come to those who love it.・・・ Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.・・・ History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction set by liberty and the author of liberty. CNNより 過去ログ http://okweb.jp/kotaeru.php3?q=924382 の回答を踏まえると、 上記の文はどう和訳したらいいでしょうか？（特に４文目） 私のまずい和訳が必要でしたら補足させていただきます。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
お礼
ご回答ありがとうございます。 的外れな回答をしていなかったようで安心しました。 そして、文章の添削もありがとうございます。 参考にさせていただきます！