What does it mean to say the U.S. doesn't have separation of powers, but separated institutions sharing powers?
- The U.S. does not have a strict separation of powers, but rather, it has separated institutions sharing powers.
- The President has the authority to propose legislation and has veto power, but the Senate has the final say.
- According to Richard Neustadt, the Constitution does not truly have separation of powers, but rather, it has separated institutions sharing powers.
- ベストアンサー
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。
- wxw
- お礼率89% (1045/1166)
- 英語
- 回答数3
- ありがとう数3
- みんなの回答 （3）
- 専門家の回答
質問者が選んだベストアンサー
＞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？ ⇒残念ながら、違うと思います。（これは質問のうちの一部です！） 質問は、What does it mean to say the U.S. doesn't have separation of powers, but separated institutions sharing powers?（米国では、権限を分離したのではなく、権限を共有する組織を分離した、ということはどういう意味ですか？）でした。 ということは、次のような回答が期待されているのだと思います。 It means that the administrative body and the legislative body, more concretely, the President and the Senate check each other, even though sharing powers.（それは、行政機関と立法機関とが、より具体的には大統領と上院とが、権限を共有しながらも互に牽制し合う、という意味です。）
その他の回答 (2)
- happy0240
- ベストアンサー率71% (5/7)
一分の人は混乱するかもしらないので、「indirectly」もいれた方がいい。 答： It means the institutions indirectly make final decisions 'together'.
お礼
ご回答ありがとうございました。
- happy0240
- ベストアンサー率71% (5/7)
問：What does it mean to say the U.S. doesn't have separation of powers, but separated institutions sharing powers? 答： It means the institutions make final decisions 'together'. ※ the structure of the constitution tries to prevent one single institute (one person), from becoming a 'dictator'. :o)
お礼
ご回答ありがとうございます。 お礼の返信が遅くなってしまい、大変ご迷惑をおかけししました。 申し訳ございません。 回答参考になりました。 ありがとうございます。
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＜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
- 英文についての質問です。
In comparing his results obtained for different domains, Galton claimed that they supported, but did not prove, his hereditarian thesis. "The general result is, that exactly one-half of the illustrious men have one or more eminent relations." The highest proportion of the illustrious with an eminent family, 0.8, he found among senior judges(24 out of 30 lord chancellors) and men of science (65 out of 83), the lowest, 0.2-0.3, among divines (33 out of 196) and musicians (26 out of 100), with an overall average for all domains of 0.5. However, Galton admitted that his personal bias could easily have influenced his choice of illustrious and eminent individuals. (Genius by Andrew Robinson) 1) 以下の数字が出てくる英文はどのように読むのでしょうか？ The highest proportion of the illustrious with an eminent family, 0.8, he found among senior judges(24 out of 30 lord chancellors) and men of science (65 out of 83), the lowest, 0.2-0.3, among divines (33 out of 196) and musicians (26 out of 100), with an overall average for all domains of 0.5. 2）exactly one-half of the illustrious men have one or more eminent relations. ・・・・relationsは親戚ですか？ 3）his personal bias・・・彼の個人的な先入観、ですか？ 複数の質問になってしまい申し訳ありません。 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。
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
- 英文に関する質問
6. Where did the federal government’s powers come from? という質問があるのですが、 As we shall see in a later chapter, American federalism has evolved dramatically since the Constitution was adopted, giving the federal government the kind of authority over the states that many of the Convention delegates feared. ここで述べられていることを参考にし、 The federal government's powers come from giving the federal government the kind of authority over the states that many of the Convention delegates feared. （連邦政府の権限は、多くの条約代表者が懸念している州に対する連邦政府の権限を与えることから来ている。） としたのですが、こちらでいいでしょうか？ 英文の添削、また質問の趣旨に合っているかを教えて欲しいです。 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。
Full well do I know that in order to attain any definite goal it is imperative that one person should do the thinking and commanding and carry most of the responsibility. But those who are led should not be driven, and they should be allowed to choose their leader. It seems to me that the distinctions separating the social classes are false; in the last analysis they rest on force. I am convinced that degeneracy follows every autocratic system of violence, for violence inevitably attracts moral inferiors. Time has proved that illustrious tyrants are succeeded by scoundrels. For this reason I have always been passionately opposed to such regimes as exist in Russia and Italy to-day. The thing which has discredited the European forms of democracy is not the basic theory of democracy itself, which some say is at fault, but the instability of our political leadership, as well as the impersonal character of party alignments. (What I Believe by A. Einstein) わからない点について教えてください。 1）But those who are led should not be driven, and they should be allowed to choose their leader. those who are led should not be drivenのshould not be drivenの個所はどのように意味をとるとよいのでしょうか？人の思うままになってはいけない、というような意味ですか？ 2) in the last analysis they rest on forceのrestは「～に基づく」という意味ですか？ 3）The thing which has discredited the European forms of democracy is not the basic theory of democracy itself, which some say is at fault, but the instability of our political leadership, as well as the impersonal character of party alignments. この英文は、基本的にnot～but構文ですか？ which some say is at faultのwhichは関係代名詞ですか？先行詞は冒頭のthe thingですか？ the impersonal character of party alignmentsの意味がとりにくいのですが、「政党の一直線化（整列化？）の非個人的な特質」？（ほとんど意味がわかりません） 質問が多くなってしまいましたが、よろしくお願いいたします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- mutualの訳し方
After almost 20 years of marriage, my wife and I are getting ready to be separated. The separation is, thankfully, amicable and mutual. ここででのmutualはどう訳したら良いでしょうか？よろしくお願いします
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
お礼
返信が遅くなってしまい、申し訳ございませんでした。 回答は参考にさせていただいておりましたが、お礼とベストアンサーを決めるのを忘れていました。 今後このようなことがないように気をつけます。 お待たせしてすみませんでした。