DT
Automatic translation into Chinese (Simplified) is shown. It is cached for future readers; the original remains authoritative.
总统先生，为什么贵政府又一次需要由法院来提醒：美国的宪法和法律也同样适用于你们？
这一次，事关 Anthropic —— 一家美国私营公司。
该公司拒绝允许其技术被用于某些军事用途。作为回应，五角大楼将 Anthropic 定性为供应链风险，实质上将其列入黑名单。
8 月 28 日，联邦法官 Rita Lin 裁定五角大楼的行动是非法的。法院认定该决定相当于对公司立场的报复，侵犯了其根据第一修正案享有的权利和第五修正案保障的正当程序权利，并不当使用了“供应链风险”这一机制。
政府方面则辩称，Anthropic 的限制给军方带来了操作性风险。
但这已不仅仅关乎 Anthropic。
我们不断看到相同的模式：
政府做出决定 → 受影响方诉诸法院 → 法院认定行政部门超越权限或违反法律要求的程序。
Anthropic 并非唯一的近期例子。
就在本周，同一联邦法院阻止了与你努力限制邮寄投票相关部分规则的执行，提出了严重的宪法问题。
而就在数天之前，上诉法院再次维持一项裁决，裁定司法部试图使用一名其任命被认定为非法的检察官的做法无效。
总统先生，
当您就职时，您宣誓要维护、保护并捍卫美利坚合众国宪法。
宪法第二条还要求总统确保法律得到忠实执行。
那么，为什么贵政府日复一日需要法院不断提醒总统权力是有界限的？
为什么先做出影响公民、公司、各州或公共机构权利的决定——随后才由美国法院解释法律实际上允许贵政府做什么？
美利坚合众国总统拥有巨大的权力。
但正因如此，人们更应期待他在行使这项权力时恪守其边界，而不是更肆意妄为。
宪法并非仅为总统感到方便的时候而存在。
当它阻碍总统时，宪法的重要性尤为凸显。
总统先生，还要多少起法院裁决，您的政府才会在采取行动之前先核查其是否合法——而不是等到另一家法院出面阻止之后才去做？
这一次，事关 Anthropic —— 一家美国私营公司。
该公司拒绝允许其技术被用于某些军事用途。作为回应，五角大楼将 Anthropic 定性为供应链风险，实质上将其列入黑名单。
8 月 28 日，联邦法官 Rita Lin 裁定五角大楼的行动是非法的。法院认定该决定相当于对公司立场的报复，侵犯了其根据第一修正案享有的权利和第五修正案保障的正当程序权利，并不当使用了“供应链风险”这一机制。
政府方面则辩称，Anthropic 的限制给军方带来了操作性风险。
但这已不仅仅关乎 Anthropic。
我们不断看到相同的模式：
政府做出决定 → 受影响方诉诸法院 → 法院认定行政部门超越权限或违反法律要求的程序。
Anthropic 并非唯一的近期例子。
就在本周，同一联邦法院阻止了与你努力限制邮寄投票相关部分规则的执行，提出了严重的宪法问题。
而就在数天之前，上诉法院再次维持一项裁决，裁定司法部试图使用一名其任命被认定为非法的检察官的做法无效。
总统先生，
当您就职时，您宣誓要维护、保护并捍卫美利坚合众国宪法。
宪法第二条还要求总统确保法律得到忠实执行。
那么，为什么贵政府日复一日需要法院不断提醒总统权力是有界限的？
为什么先做出影响公民、公司、各州或公共机构权利的决定——随后才由美国法院解释法律实际上允许贵政府做什么？
美利坚合众国总统拥有巨大的权力。
但正因如此，人们更应期待他在行使这项权力时恪守其边界，而不是更肆意妄为。
宪法并非仅为总统感到方便的时候而存在。
当它阻碍总统时，宪法的重要性尤为凸显。
总统先生，还要多少起法院裁决，您的政府才会在采取行动之前先核查其是否合法——而不是等到另一家法院出面阻止之后才去做？
Original text: English
Mr. President, why does your administration once again have to be told by a court that the Constitution and the laws of the United States apply to it too?This time, the issue is Anthropic — a private American company.
The company refused to permit certain military uses of its technology. In response, the Pentagon designated Anthropic a supply-chain risk and effectively blacklisted it.
On August 28, Federal Judge Rita Lin ruled that the Pentagon’s actions were unlawful. The court found that the decision amounted to retaliation for the company’s position, violated its rights under the First Amendment and the due-process protections of the Fifth Amendment, and improperly used the “supply-chain risk” mechanism.
The administration, for its part, argued that Anthropic’s restrictions created operational risks for the military.
But this is no longer only about Anthropic.
We keep seeing the same pattern:
the administration makes a decision → affected parties go to court → the court finds that the executive branch exceeded its authority or violated procedures required by law.
Anthropic is not the only recent example.
This same week, another federal court blocked part of the rules connected with your efforts to restrict mail-in voting, raising serious constitutional concerns.
And only days earlier, an appeals court again left standing a ruling against the Justice Department’s attempt to use a prosecutor whose appointment had been found unlawful.
Mr. President,
when you took office, you swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Article II of the Constitution also requires the President to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.
So why does your administration, day after day, have to receive reminders from the courts that there are limits to presidential power?
Why are decisions first made that affect the rights of citizens, companies, states or public institutions — only for an American court to later explain what the law actually allowed your administration to do?
The President of the United States possesses enormous power.
But that is precisely why he should be expected to show more respect for the limits on that power, not less.
The Constitution does not exist only for the moments when it is convenient for the President.
It matters most when it gets in his way.
Mr. President, how many more court rulings will it take before your administration begins checking whether its actions are lawful before taking them — instead of after another court stops them?
读者回应
举报
分享链接: https://lettertoleader.com/zh/united-states/president/241-mr-president-does-the-constitution-apply-to-your-administration-too