- ベストアンサー
Separation of Powers: A System of Shared Institutions
- The Constitution established a system of shared powers among the three branches of the federal government.
- This system, known as separation of powers, aims to prevent any one branch from gaining too much control over the others.
- The concept of separation of powers is often described as 'separated institutions sharing powers.'
- みんなの回答 （2）
- 専門家の回答
関連するQ&A
- 英文についての質問
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、それに該当するのではないか、という文章を探し出しました。 The federal government created by this compromise is variously called a government of delegated powers and a government of enumerated powers. It’s called a government of delegated powers because all the sovereign political authority it has was given to it by the states, whose power it was originally. This understanding was clearly expressed by the Supreme Court in a 1947 ruling, where it noted. 答えは It’s called a government of delegated powers でいいでしょうか？ branchという言葉が一度も出てきていないのですが、質問されていることと、上の文章は内容が一致していますか？ ただ、こちらの文章はcompromise(妥協によって作られた)、と言っているのに対し、質問文はTo prevent anyone from getting too much control over any part of the federal government’s power（連邦政府の権限のいずれかの部分を誰もが制御できないようにするため）となっていて、若干言っていることが違うかな…とも思っているのですが、どうでしょうか？ 難しい（ややこしい）質問ですみませんが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 it a unitary system? A confederal one?という質問があったので、下記の文章を探しました。 英文が長くて申し訳ないです。 参考にしたのは２段落目からです。 The issue was resolved through compromise, the first of many at the Convention. To keep the Virginia Plan a live proposal, Madison withdrew the proposal for a national veto over state laws, and the Convention agreed in principle to redistribute some of their state’s powers to a government of the United States. This form of government we now call federal, a system in which sovereign political authority is shared between the central government and regional (state or provincial) governments. This is in in contrast to a confederal system, as the states had under the Articles, where the regional governments are sovereign, and the central government has only as much authority as the regional governments allow it, and a unitary system where the central government is sovereign, and the state or provincial governments have only as much power as the central government allows them. この文章を踏まえて、質問に対する答えは [Unitary systemはconfederal oneとは対照的で中央政府が主権国家である。] でいいでしょうか？ 質問の回答（英文）はまとめて、また後日に質問させていただくかもしれません。 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
- 英文についての質問です
Has history shown that separation of powers is necessary to protect liberty? という質問の答えになる箇所をいくつか探しました。 （＊全文読んでいただく必要は無いです。） Their intellectual guide here was the French political theorist Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755), who warned against letting anyone control both those powers. When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehension may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner. ＊ Again, there is no liberty if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the executive, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression. （＊以下を参考にしました。それだけではわからないと思ったので、前文も載せましたが、特に読んでいただかなくて大丈夫かと思います。） その質問に対する答えが、 「はい、Montesquieuは司法権が立法府と行政府を分離させなければ、自由はないと示した。」 Yes, Montesquieu suggested that there is no freedom unless the judiciary power be not separated from legislative and executive. ＝こちらでいいでしょうか？ 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
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＜アメリカ政治＞
Define Federalism（(be sure to distinguish it from separation of powers）という問題があるのですが、 = The division of political power between a central government and regional governments. この回答だと「separation of powers」に当てはまるのでしょうか？ もしくは The federal government had its “sphere of sovereignty” (the political issues over which it had full authority) and the states had their own sphere of sovereignty, and the boundaries between the two were distinct. This system, the original understanding of American federalism, is called Dual Sovereignty. ＝こちらが回答かな？と思ったのですがこれはfederalismについての内容であっていますか？ 質問がややこしくてすみませんが、よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文を訳して下さい。
The Treaty of Versailles (French: Traité de Versailles) was the most important of the peace treaties that brought World War I to an end. The Treaty ended the state of war between Germany and the Allied Powers. It was signed on 28 June 1919 in Versailles, exactly five years after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand which directly led to World War I. The other Central Powers on the German side of World War I signed separate treaties. Although the armistice, signed on 11 November 1918, ended the actual fighting, it took six months of Allied negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference to conclude the peace treaty. The treaty was registered by the Secretariat of the League of Nations on 21 October 1919. Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and controversial required "Germany [to] accept the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage" during the war (the other members of the Central Powers signed treaties containing similar articles). This article, Article 231, later became known as the War Guilt clause. The treaty required Germany to disarm, make ample territorial concessions, and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. In 1921 the total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion marks (then $31.4 billion or ￡6.6 billion, roughly equivalent to US $442 billion or UK ￡284 billion in 2018). At the time economists, notably John Maynard Keynes (a British delegate to the Paris Peace Conference), predicted that the treaty was too harsh—a "Carthaginian peace"—and said the reparations figure was excessive and counter-productive, views that, since then, have been the subject of ongoing debate by historians and economists from several countries. On the other hand, prominent figures on the Allied side such as French Marshal Ferdinand Foch criticized the treaty for treating Germany too leniently. The result of these competing and sometimes conflicting goals among the victors was a compromise that left no one content: Germany was neither pacified nor conciliated, nor was it permanently weakened. The problems that arose from the treaty would lead to the Locarno Treaties, which improved relations between Germany and the other European powers, and the re-negotiation of the reparation system resulting in the Dawes Plan, the Young Plan, and the indefinite postponement of reparations at the Lausanne Conference of 1932. Although it is often referred to as the "Versailles Conference", only the actual signing of the treaty took place at the historic palace. Most of the negotiations were in Paris, with the "Big Four" meetings taking place generally at the Quai d'Orsay.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文についての質問です。
In surprising ways, our systems of timekeeping also mask ancient astrological leanings, which have resisted all efforts of principalities and powers to redefine them. Tabloid newspapers and popular magazines still perpetuate the myths of astrology. Ironically, we shall find that, while the constellations can tell us nothing about the future, they have much to tell us about the past. (The artful universe by J.D.Barrow） 1) , which have resisted all efforts of principalities and powers to redefine them. の意味について、ここでのresistedは「抵抗する」という意味ですか？ our systems of timekeeping （私たちの時間管理のシステム？）は、それら（our systems of timekeeping）を再定義する公国と力のすべての努力に抵抗した。という訳になるのでしょうか？意味がよくとれません。どういう内容なのでしょうか？ ＊which の先行詞はsystems of timekeeping ですか？ 2) Ironically, we shall find that, while the constellations can tell us nothing about the future, they have much to tell us about the past. の意味について、 the myths of astrologyというのはつまり雑誌に載っている星占いのことでしょうか？ だとすると、the constellations can tell us nothing about the future, they have much to tell us about the past.の部分がよくわかりません。 星占い（星座）は未来の事を語るものだと思うのですが・・・なぜ上記のような事を述べているのか。（Ironicallyと書き出しているので、そういう皮肉を言っている、というのはわかるのですが。） よろしくお願いいたします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文を御訳し下さい。
Much of the power of benchmarking is bound up in the mechanics and effects of ranking and quantification, which in turn generate a form of ‘constructed objectivity’ that acts back upon the reality it aims to describe. The recent popularity of benchmarks can also be traced to their capacity to promote otherwise highly contentious policy goals and political agendas by means of rhetorical appeals to the ostensibly neutral language of technocratic assessment and numerical comparison. 上記英文を分かり易く御訳し下さい。 ‘constructed objectivity’ は「構築された客観性」でもよいかとは思いますが適訳があればお直し下さい。宜しくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- マイカーローンの仮審査を申し込む際、現在の借入状況について入力する欄は1つしかありませんが、住宅ローンや学資ローンなど2つ以上の借入がある場合、どうすれば良いのでしょうか？
- マイカーローンの仮審査では、現在の借入状況を入力する欄は1つしかありません。しかし、住宅ローンや学資ローンなど2つ以上の借入がある場合、どのように対応すれば良いでしょうか？
- マイカーローンの仮審査の申し込みを考えていますが、現在の借入状況についての入力欄は1つしかありません。住宅ローンや学資ローンなど他の借入もある場合、どのようにすれば良いのでしょうか？
お礼
難しい質問にも関わらず、ご回答いただきありがとうございます。 いただいた回答を参考に、教授のところに持って行きます。 なんどもありがとうございました。