美国国家公共电台 NPR--Do legislative supermajorities weaken the democratic process, as seen in Tennessee?

Do legislative¹ supermajorities weaken the democratic process, as seen in Tennessee?

Transcript³

NPR speaks with Ken² Paulson, with the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University. He says legislative supermajorities can weaken the democratic process, as we saw in Tennessee last week.

LEILA FADEL, HOST:

Justin Pearson and Justin Jones, the Democratic lawmakers expelled by Republicans from the Tennessee legislature are determined⁴ to get their seats back, and both of them could learn as soon as today what's next for their political futures⁵ in the state. A GOP supermajority last week voted out Jones and Pearson after the two young Black lawmakers led a protest on the Tennessee House floor calling for gun law reforms. A white colleague who was also up for expulsion managed to keep her seat by just one vote. Our next guest says the expulsions are examples of what happens when one party has too much power. Ken Paulson is the director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University.

Ken, thanks for being here. Good morning.

KEN PAULSON: Very good to join you.

FADEL: So it was a supermajority that ousted⁶ these two Democrats⁷. How does one party having so much power in a legislature affect the democratic process?

PAULSON: Well, the problem is that it tends to nullify the traditional tools of democracy. The First Amendment⁸ gave us this extraordinary gift in America. You know, we have five freedoms, four of which were expressly designed to give Americans a real voice in the destiny of the nation. So we have the right to exercise our free speech, and we can assemble together and march, and we can petition the government and say these things need to change. And we can also help keep government in check by supporting a free press.

Now, in theory, our nation gets stronger and smarter and more dynamic when everyone can share their views. But supermajorities - they don't have to pay a whole lot of attention to those four tools of democracy because marches and protests and speeches and editorials, all those things have very little impact if those in power just ignore them. They - you know, they never have to worry about their legislation passing. They don't have to worry about getting reelected because, largely, gerrymandering has taken care of that. And they don't have to worry about critical editorials or news stories 'cause they just need to call that fake news. And so collectively, all these things we as Americans use, the tools we have used in 1791 to participate in democracy, to have our voices be heard - those, in effect, are nullified because those in power simply don't pay attention.

FADEL: So do you think what happened in Tennessee could happen in other parts of the country with supermajorities?

PAULSON: Well, there are two things that happen in Tennessee. First of all, it was just the raw emotion, the anger by the lawmakers in the General Assembly to pay back Justin Jones, Justin Pearson and Gloria Johnson for what they described as violating the House's decorum and insulting the dignity of the House. And when you listen to those and when you realize that throughout the history of Tennessee - I mean, this didn't happen until 1866. It has only happened when people have committed crime or extended immorality⁹.

So when you realize that they were kicked out because, really, speaking loudly on the floor of the House about the quality of work the legislature was doing - they were critical of them; they were saying they weren't being responsive to their representatives; you have to wonder what triggered that, how that rose to the level of a crime. And you look at it, and you go, wait, it's obvious they were criticizing these lawmakers who didn't want to be criticized in public. And so this was payback. And obviously, that has major, major impact on democracy and the way we speak freely in our society.

FADEL: Ken Paulson is the director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University.

Thank you so much, Ken.

PAULSON: Thank you.

1 legislative   

n.立法机构，立法权；adj.立法的，有立法权的

参考例句：

• Congress is the legislative branch of the U.S. government.国会是美国政府的立法部门。
• Today's hearing was just the first step in the legislative process.今天的听证会只是展开立法程序的第一步。

2 ken   

n.视野，知识领域

参考例句：

• Such things are beyond my ken.我可不懂这些事。
• Abstract words are beyond the ken of children.抽象的言辞超出小孩所理解的范围.

3 transcript   

n.抄本，誊本，副本，肄业证书

参考例句：

• A transcript of the tapes was presented as evidence in court.一份录音带的文字本作为证据被呈交法庭。
• They wouldn't let me have a transcript of the interview.他们拒绝给我一份采访的文字整理稿。

4 determined   

adj.坚定的；有决心的

参考例句：

• I have determined on going to Tibet after graduation.我已决定毕业后去西藏。
• He determined to view the rooms behind the office.他决定查看一下办公室后面的房间。

5 futures   

n.期货，期货交易

参考例句：

• He continued his operations in cotton futures.他继续进行棉花期货交易。
• Cotton futures are selling at high prices.棉花期货交易的卖价是很高的。

6 ousted   

驱逐( oust的过去式和过去分词 )； 革职； 罢黜； 剥夺

参考例句：

• He was ousted as chairman. 他的主席职务被革除了。
• He may be ousted by a military takeover. 他可能在一场军事接管中被赶下台。

7 democrats   

n.民主主义者，民主人士( democrat的名词复数 )

参考例句：

• The Democrats held a pep rally on Capitol Hill yesterday. 民主党昨天在国会山召开了竞选誓师大会。
• The democrats organize a filibuster in the senate. 民主党党员组织了阻挠议事。 来自《简明英汉词典》

8 amendment   

n.改正，修正，改善，修正案

参考例句：

• The amendment was rejected by 207 voters to 143.这项修正案以207票对143票被否决。
• The Opposition has tabled an amendment to the bill.反对党已经就该议案提交了一项修正条款。

9 immorality   

n. 不道德, 无道义

参考例句：

• All the churchmen have preached against immorality. 所有牧师都讲道反对不道德的行为。
• Where the European sees immorality and lawlessness, strict law rules in reality. 在欧洲人视为不道德和无规则的地方，事实上都盛行着一种严格的规则。 来自英汉非文学 - 家庭、私有制和国家的起源