U.S. Government · Unit 1 · Lesson 2 · 美國政治 單元一 第二課
Pass a bill, veto it, override the veto: choose a move in a 3D model of Washington and watch an arrow fly from the branch that acts to the branch it checks. Read Montesquieu and Federalist No. 47 in the original, then work out what happens to a bill after a veto.
通過法案、否決、推翻否決——在華盛頓的 3D 模型裡選一招，看箭頭從出手的部門飛向被牽制的部門。讀孟德斯鳩與《聯邦論》第四十七篇的原文，再算算一項法案被否決之後還有幾條路。
The Constitution divides the work of government among three branches so that no single person or group holds all of it. Then it gives each branch a limited share in the work of the others, so that each can slow or stop the other two. The first idea is called the separation of powers. The second is called checks and balances.
憲法把政府的工作分給三個部門，讓任何一個人或一群人都拿不到全部的權力；接著又讓每個部門在別的部門的工作裡各有一小份，於是每一個都能拖慢或擋下另外兩個。前一個想法叫權力分立，後一個叫制衡。
3D Model · 3D 模型
The three buildings stand for Congress, the President, and the courts. Choose a move from the buttons below. An arrow flies from the branch that acts to the branch it checks, and the panel shows what the move is, where the Constitution provides for it, and an example from history. Many panels end with a question: what can the other side do? Press the answer and the exchange goes on. The grid keeps track of which of the six directions you have seen.
三棟建築代表國會、總統和法院。從下面的按鈕選一招：箭頭會從出手的部門飛向被牽制的部門，右邊欄說明這一招是什麼、憲法在哪裡規定，以及歷史上的一個例子。很多說明欄最後會問：對方可以怎麼回應？按下答案，這場往來就接著演下去。右下角的方格記著六個方向裡你看過哪幾個。
Drag to look around · 拖曳轉動視角 Scroll or pinch to zoom · 滾輪／雙指縮放
This 3D model needs WebGL, which this browser does not support. The buttons and the panel still work, and so do the reading and the two activities below.
這個瀏覽器不支援 WebGL，無法顯示 3D 模型；按鈕和說明欄照樣能用，下面的課文和兩個小互動也都能用。
Choose a move · 選一招
Congress can … 國會可以……
The President can … 總統可以……
The Courts can … 法院可以……
A simplified diagram, not to scale; the positions of the buildings and the directions they face are simplified too. The arrows show who acts on whom. They do not show how often each move is used: some are everyday events, and some have happened only a handful of times.
這是簡化的示意圖，不照比例；三棟建築的位置與朝向也簡化過。箭頭表示誰對誰出手，不代表這一招有多常用——有的天天發生，有的在歷史上只出現過幾次。
Reading · 英文閱讀 High school and up · 高中以上
In 1788, while the states were deciding whether to ratify the Constitution, James Madison named the danger it was built to avoid. “The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands,” he wrote in The Federalist No. 47, “… may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” The thought was not his own. Forty years earlier the French writer Montesquieu had argued that liberty cannot last where the power to make laws, the power to carry them out, and the power to judge are joined in one person or one body. Madison called him “the oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject.” The practical question was how to keep those three powers apart.
The first answer was separation. The Constitution gives the legislative power to Congress in Article I, the executive power to a President in Article II, and the judicial power to the courts in Article III. Each branch is chosen in a different way and for a different length of time: representatives for two years, senators for six, a President for four, and federal judges for as long as they show “good Behaviour.” The branches are also kept apart in their membership. No one who holds a federal office may sit in Congress at the same time, so a cabinet secretary cannot also be a senator. In a parliamentary system, by contrast, the ministers who run the government are usually members of the legislature.
Separation alone was not expected to hold. Madison warned in The Federalist No. 48 that “power is of an encroaching nature,” and he doubted that boundaries written into a document, which he called “parchment barriers,” would stop a determined branch. So the Constitution adds a second device. Rather than sealing the branches off from one another, it gives each a limited share in the work of the others. The President takes part in lawmaking through the veto. The Senate takes part in appointments. Congress can remove a President or a judge. This arrangement is called checks and balances. Madison argued that it keeps faith with Montesquieu, whose rule forbids one branch to hold the whole power of another.
Lawmaking shows how the checks work. A bill must pass both the House and the Senate, which is already a check inside Congress. It then goes to the President, who may sign it or return it with objections. That return is the veto, although the word never appears in the Constitution. Congress can still make the bill law if two thirds of each house vote to override. That is hard to do. According to the Senate's records, presidents have vetoed 2,599 bills and joint resolutions since 1789. More than a thousand were pocket vetoes, which cannot be overridden; of the 1,533 others, Congress has overridden 112. The first veto came in 1792, and the first override not until 1845.
Other checks run through appointments and money. The President chooses ambassadors, department heads, and federal judges, but only “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,” and a treaty needs the agreement of two thirds of the senators present. The Senate has voted down a nomination to the Supreme Court twelve times, the first of them in 1795. Congress also holds what is often called the power of the purse. In the words of Article I, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” A President commands the armed forces and directs the departments, but cannot lawfully spend money that Congress has not approved.
The most drastic check is removal. The House of Representatives may impeach, that is, bring formal charges against, the President, other civil officers, and judges for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The Senate then holds a trial, and conviction requires two thirds of the members present. Removal has been rare. As of 2026 the House has impeached officials twenty-two times, and the Senate has convicted eight of them, every one a federal judge. No President has been removed in this way. In 1868 the vote in the Senate to convict President Andrew Johnson was 35 to 19, one vote short of two thirds, so he was acquitted.
The courts hold a check that the Constitution does not spell out. In Marbury v. Madison, decided in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” The same opinion reasoned that a law contrary to the Constitution is void. This power, called judicial review, lets courts refuse to apply laws and executive actions that violate the Constitution. Yet the courts are checked as well. Judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and Congress decides how many justices sit on the Supreme Court. As Alexander Hamilton observed, the judiciary has “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment”: it depends on the executive branch to carry out its decisions.
All of this has a cost. A system in which every branch can say no tends to be slow, and it can stall when the branches disagree, a condition that news reports call gridlock. Critics since the nineteenth century have argued that dividing power also divides responsibility, so that voters cannot easily tell whom to hold to account. Defenders answer that the delay is deliberate. Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in 1926 that the separation of powers was adopted “not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power.” Whether that trade is worth making is a real argument about how governments should be built, and the Design Debate card in this lesson sets out both sides.
Questions · 閱讀理解
Explain the difference between “separation of powers” and “checks and balances.” Why did Madison think the first would not work without the second?
Choose one check from the reading and trace a complete exchange: who acts first, how the other branch can respond, and what finally decides the outcome.
The reading says that a system in which every branch can say no “has a cost.” What is the cost, and what do defenders of the system say it buys?
Words & Phrases · 生字及片語
Quick Check · 小測驗
1. A cabinet secretary wants to keep her post and also serve as a senator. Why does the Constitution forbid this?
2. Madison doubted that “parchment barriers” would be enough. What did he mean?
3. A bill passes the House 300 to 135 and the Senate 60 to 40. The President vetoes it, and every member votes the same way again. What happens?
4. Which fact from the reading best supports Hamilton's remark that the judiciary has “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment”?
5. Since 1789 the Senate has convicted eight impeached officials, all of them judges, and no President. What is the most reasonable conclusion?
Try It in the Model · 在模型裡試試
When you have watched all four, look at the grid in the panel. Each of the three branches should have checked both of the others: six directions in all.
四場都看過之後，看看說明欄裡的方格：三個部門應該各自牽制過另外兩個——一共六個方向。
Three arrows in a row: Congress sends a bill, the President sends it back, and Congress answers with two thirds of each house. Notice that the veto stands unless Congress can gather two thirds in both houses.
連續三道箭頭：國會送出法案，總統把它退回，國會再用兩院各三分之二回應。注意：除非國會能在兩院都湊到三分之二，否則否決就成立。
The President nominates, the Senate may refuse, and Congress decides how many seats there are. The courts are the one branch whose members are chosen entirely by the other two.
總統提名，參議院可以不同意，國會則決定有幾個席位。三個部門裡，只有法院的成員完全由另外兩個部門來決定。
Two arrows leave the Supreme Court: one toward Congress, when a law conflicts with the Constitution, and one toward the President, when an order goes beyond his lawful power. Neither is spelled out in Article III.
兩道箭頭從最高法院出發：一道指向國會（法律牴觸憲法時），一道指向總統（命令超出他合法的權限時）。這兩項在第三條裡都沒有明寫。
The same two-step process, accusation in the House and trial in the Senate, can remove a President or a judge. Compare the two panels: one has never ended in a conviction, and the other has eight times.
同一套兩步驟的程序——眾議院指控、參議院審判——可以把總統免職，也可以把法官免職。比一比這兩個說明欄：一種從來沒有以定罪收場，另一種有八次。
Try It · 動手試試
Ten moves. For each one, choose which branch is acting and which branch is being checked. There is no timer, and you can keep choosing until you find it; the game counts the ones you get on the first try.
十招。每一題選出是哪個部門出手、牽制的是哪個部門。不計時，可以一直選到對為止；遊戲會記下你第一次就答對的題數。
1 of 10 · 第 1 題（共 10 題）
Right on the first try · 第一次就答對 0 / 0
Try It · 動手試試
A bill has reached the President's desk. Set how Congress voted, choose what the President does, and read the result. Then change one thing at a time. Try to find the two ways a bill can become law without the President's signature, and the one kind of veto that Congress cannot override.
一項法案送到了總統桌上。先設定國會怎麼投票，再選總統怎麼做，看看結果；然後一次只改一樣。試著找出法案不經總統簽署也能成為法律的兩種情形，以及國會無法推翻的那一種否決。
Step 1 · How did Congress vote? 第一步：國會怎麼投票？
0
0
Each slider has two marks: a majority (218 and 51), which passes a bill, and two thirds (290 and 67), which overrides a veto.每支滑桿上有兩個記號：過半數（218 與 51）可以通過法案，三分之二（290 與 67）可以推翻否決。
Step 2 · What does the President do? 第二步：總統怎麼做？
The record since 1789 1789 年以來的紀錄
Of the 1,533 vetoes that Congress could have tried to override, it overrode 112, about 7 in every 100. The counts include joint resolutions as well as bills. The Senate's table has no “as of” date; these figures were read in October 2026.國會可以嘗試推翻的 1,533 次否決裡，被推翻的有 112 次，大約每 100 次有 7 次。這些數字除了法案，也包括聯合決議案。參議院的表格沒有標示統計截止日；這些數字是 2026 年 10 月查閱的。 U.S. Senate: Vetoes, 1789 to Present ↗U.S. House: Presidential Vetoes ↗
Counts for 2026: 435 voting seats in the House and 100 in the Senate. The Constitution sets fractions, not head counts, and the two thirds is of the members who vote, so these numbers assume that every seat is filled and every member votes. The tool also assumes that each member votes the same way on the override as on the bill.2026 年的數字：眾議院 435 個有表決權的席位、參議院 100 席。憲法寫的是分數而不是人數，而且三分之二是以實際投票的議員來算，所以這裡的票數是假設「席位全部有人、全員投票」。這個小工具還假設：表決推翻否決時，每位議員投的票和當初表決法案時一樣。
What Does the Text Say? · 條文怎麼寫？
The words are copied from the National Archives transcription of the Constitution, with the capital letters and spelling of 1787. The first clause keeps the branches apart; the other two let one branch into the work of another.
原文照美國國家檔案館的憲法謄本逐字抄錄，保留 1787 年的大寫與拼法。第一段把部門分開；另外兩段讓一個部門伸手進另一個部門的工作。
Article I, Section 6, Clause 2 (second part)第一條第六項第二款（後半）
… and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.……凡在合眾國政府擔任任何官職的人，在其任職期間，不得為國會任何一院的議員。
This is separation in its plainest form: the same person cannot be in two branches at once. It is one of the clearest differences between the presidential system of the United States and a parliamentary system such as Britain's, where ministers normally sit in the legislature.這是最直白的「分開」：同一個人不能同時待在兩個部門。美國的總統制和英國那樣的內閣制，最清楚的差別之一就在這裡——在英國，閣員通常同時是國會議員。
Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 (the veto and the override)第一條第七項第二款（否決與推翻否決）
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.凡經眾議院與參議院通過的法案，在成為法律之前，應送交合眾國總統。總統如果同意，應予簽署；如果不同意，應附上異議，退回提出該法案的那一院；該院應把異議詳細載入議事錄，並重新審議。重新審議後，如果該院有三分之二同意通過，應將法案連同異議送交另一院，由另一院同樣重新審議；如果也經該院三分之二同意，該法案即成為法律。
The clause continues: a bill not returned within ten days, Sundays excepted, becomes law as if signed, “unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.” That last phrase is the source of the pocket veto.條文接著規定：法案在十天內（星期日不算）沒有被退回，就如同已簽署一樣成為法律，「除非國會休會致使法案無從退回，在這種情形下它不成為法律」。最後這一句，就是口袋否決的來源。
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 (advice and consent)第二條第二項第二款（參議院的建議與同意）
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:總統經參議院的建議與同意，並經出席參議員三分之二贊成，有締結條約之權；總統提名，並經參議院的建議與同意，任命大使、其他公使與領事、最高法院法官，以及本憲法未另行規定任命方式、而依法律設置的合眾國一切其他官員。
Notice the two different thresholds in one sentence. Treaties need two thirds of the senators present. Appointments need the Senate's consent, and the text does not say how large a vote that takes.注意同一句話裡有兩種不同的門檻：條約要出席參議員的三分之二；人事任命要參議院同意，但條文沒有說需要多少票。
Read the Source · 讀原典
Two texts forty years apart. The first is the passage that the authors of the Constitution kept coming back to, in the standard English translation of their century. The second is Madison explaining what that passage does and does not require. Read each slowly before you open the translation; the eighteenth-century spellings (“controul,” “every thing”) are in the originals.
兩段相隔四十年的文字。第一段是制憲者一再回頭去談的那一段，用的是十八世紀通行的英譯本；第二段是麥迪遜在解釋這段話要求什麼、不要求什麼。先慢慢讀一遍，再打開中譯；十八世紀的拼法（controul、every thing）是原文就有的。
Political theory, 1748 · 1748 年的政治理論
Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu. First published in French in 1748; English translation by Thomas Nugent, first published in the early 1750s.孟德斯鳩（Montesquieu）著，1748 年以法文出版；英譯者為 Thomas Nugent，英譯本在 1750 年代初出版。
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 apprehensions 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 power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary controul; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor.
There would be an end of every thing, were the same man, or the same body whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and that of judging the crimes or differences of individuals.
當立法權與行政權集中在同一個人或同一個官員團體手上時，自由就不存在了；因為人們會擔心，同一位君主或同一個元老院會制定暴虐的法律，再用暴虐的方式去執行。
同樣地，如果審判權不和立法權、行政權分開，自由也不存在。如果審判權和立法權合在一起，人民的生命與自由就會受到恣意的支配，因為法官就是立法者。如果審判權和行政權合在一起，法官就可能擁有壓迫者的全部暴力。
如果同一個人，或是同一個機構——不論是貴族的還是人民的——行使這三種權力，也就是制定法律的權力、執行公共決議的權力，以及審判罪行或私人爭訟的權力，那就一切都完了。
Text of Nugent's translation as printed in the London edition of 1758, transcribed by Wikisource from page scans. Public domain. The Chinese translation is ours.原文依 Nugent 英譯本 1758 年倫敦版，由 Wikisource 依掃描頁面謄錄；公有領域。中譯為本站所譯。 Wikisource: The Spirit of Laws (1758), Book XI ↗
Hard words · 難字
Three questions for a close reading · 三個導讀問題
Essay, 1788 · 1788 年的文章
By James Madison, signed “Publius.” Printed in New York newspapers at the end of January 1788; the editors of Madison's papers date it January 30.麥迪遜著，署名「普布利烏斯」（Publius）。1788 年 1 月底刊登於紐約的報紙；《麥迪遜文集》的編者把日期定在 1 月 30 日。
The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
From these facts by which Montesquieu was guided it may clearly be inferred, that in saying, “there can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates,” or, “if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers,” he did not mean that these departments ought to have no partial agency in, or no control over the acts of each other. His meaning, as his own words import, and still more conclusively as illustrated by the example in his eye, can amount to no more than this, that where the whole power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the whole power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution, are subverted.
把立法、行政、司法的一切權力集中在同一批人手裡——不論是一個人、少數人還是多數人，也不論是世襲的、自己任命的還是選舉產生的——完全可以說就是暴政的定義。
從孟德斯鳩所依據的這些事實，可以清楚地推斷：當他說「立法權與行政權集中在同一個人或同一個官員團體時，自由便不存在」，或者「審判權如果不和立法權、行政權分開」的時候，他的意思並不是說這些部門對彼此的作為不應該有部分的參與，或者不應該有任何牽制。他的意思——從他自己的話就看得出來，從他眼前的那個實例看得更加確定——只不過是：當一個部門的全部權力，由握有另一個部門全部權力的同一批人行使時，自由憲政的基本原則就被顛覆了。
Text as given by Founders Online (National Archives), from The Papers of James Madison. The two paragraphs come from different places in the essay. “The example in his eye” is the British constitution, which Montesquieu was describing. Madison's quotations from Montesquieu differ slightly from Nugent's translation above; the editors suggest he may have been translating from a French edition. Other editions, including the Library of Congress text, punctuate the passage differently, print some words in capitals, and date the essay February 1. Public domain. The Chinese translation is ours.原文依 Founders Online（美國國家檔案館）收錄的《麥迪遜文集》版本；這兩段出自文章裡不同的地方。「他眼前的那個實例」指的是孟德斯鳩當時所描述的英國憲政。麥迪遜引用孟德斯鳩的字句，和上面 Nugent 的譯文略有出入；編者推測他可能是自己從法文本翻譯的。其他版本（包括國會圖書館的文本）標點不同、有些字用大寫，日期則標為 2 月 1 日。公有領域。中譯為本站所譯。 Founders Online: The Federalist Number 47 ↗Library of Congress: Federalist Nos. 41–50 ↗
Hard words · 難字
Three questions for a close reading · 三個導讀問題
The Design Debate · 制度的爭論
Democracies have built their governments in two broad ways. Some, like the United States, keep the executive and the legislature apart and let each check the other. Others join them, in what the English writer Walter Bagehot called in 1867 “the nearly complete fusion” of the two powers: the executive is chosen by the legislature and lasts only while it keeps the legislature's support. Each design is stated here in its strongest form, and the card does not choose between them.
民主國家搭建政府的方式大致有兩種。一種像美國，把行政和立法分開，讓它們互相牽制；另一種把兩者結合起來——英國作家白芝浩（Walter Bagehot）在 1867 年稱之為兩種權力「幾乎完全的融合」：行政首長由立法機關產生，只有在保住立法機關支持的時候才能繼續執政。這裡把兩種設計各用最強的版本寫出來，不替它們分高下。
Should the power to make laws and the power to carry them out be kept in separate hands that must agree before the government acts, or joined so that one majority, answerable to the voters, can govern?制定法律的權力和執行法律的權力，應該放在必須彼此同意才能行動的不同人手上，還是結合起來，讓一個要向選民負責的多數能夠施政？
One design · 一種設計
The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy.Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926)1787 年的制憲會議採用權力分立的原則，不是為了提高效率，而是為了防止權力被恣意行使。目的不在避免摩擦，而是要藉著把政府權力分配給三個部門所必然產生的摩擦，使人民免於專制。——布蘭戴斯大法官，1926 年（不同意見書）
Cornell LII: Myers v. United States (1926) ↗Library of Congress: Federalist No. 51 ↗
Another design · 另一種設計
If there be one principle clearer than another, it is this: that in any business, whether of government or of mere merchandising, somebody must be trusted, in order that when things go wrong it may be quite plain who should be punished. … Power and strict accountability for its use are the essential constituents of good government.Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government (1885), written when he was a young scholar; some words are in italics in the original如果有哪一條原則比別的更清楚，那就是：任何事業，不論是政府還是單純的買賣，總得信任某一個人，這樣事情出錯時，才能清清楚楚知道該罰誰。……權力，加上對如何使用權力的嚴格問責，是良好政府的根本要素。——威爾遜，《國會政體》（1885，當時他還是一位年輕的學者）
Project Gutenberg: Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government ↗Project Gutenberg: Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution ↗
Both designs exist in stable democracies, and many countries combine features of the two. The disagreement is about which risk to guard against first: a government that can do too much, or one that can do too little. This card does not settle it. Which of the arguments above do you find strongest, and what evidence would change your mind?這兩種設計都存在於穩定的民主國家，也有許多國家混用兩者的特色。分歧在於先防哪一種風險：一個能做太多事的政府，還是一個做不了事的政府。這張卡不替這個問題下結論。上面的論點裡，你覺得哪幾個最有力？什麼樣的證據會讓你改變想法？
Compare with Taiwan · 和台灣比一比
This card compares designs only. It quotes the Constitution of the Republic of China and its Additional Articles from the official Laws and Regulations Database, and it does not say which arrangement is better.
這張卡只比制度的設計，條文引自全國法規資料庫的《中華民國憲法》與《中華民國憲法增修條文》；不評價哪一種安排比較好。
| Topic · 項目 | United States美國 | Republic of China (Taiwan)中華民國（台灣） |
|---|---|---|
| How the powers are divided權力怎麼分 | Three branches: Congress (Article I), the President (Article II), and the courts (Article III).三個部門：國會（第一條）、總統（第二條）、法院（第三條）。 | A President and five Yuan: Executive, Legislative, Judicial, Examination, and Control (Constitution, Articles 53, 62, 77, 83, and 90).總統之外設五院：行政院、立法院、司法院、考試院、監察院（憲法第 53、62、77、83、90 條）。 |
| The executive and the legislature行政與立法的關係 | The President is elected separately for a fixed term of four years and does not depend on the confidence of Congress. No officeholder may sit in Congress.總統另外選出，任期固定四年，不必得到國會的信任才能繼續任職。官員不得兼任國會議員。 | The President is directly elected and appoints the president of the Executive Yuan. The Executive Yuan is responsible to the Legislative Yuan, which may pass a vote of no confidence; the President may then dissolve the Legislative Yuan (Additional Articles 2 and 3).總統由人民直選，並任命行政院院長。行政院對立法院負責；立法院可以通過不信任案，總統在不信任案通過後得解散立法院（增修條文第 2、3 條）。 |
| Sending a bill back把法案退回去 | The President returns the bill. Overriding takes two thirds of each house. A bill neither signed nor returned within ten days becomes law if Congress is still in session.總統把法案退回。推翻需要兩院各三分之二。十天內既沒簽署也沒退回的法案，只要國會還在開會，就成為法律。 | The Executive Yuan, with the President's approval, asks the Legislative Yuan to reconsider within ten days. The bill is upheld if more than half of all members vote for it. If the Legislative Yuan does not decide in time, the original bill lapses.行政院經總統核可，於十日內移請立法院覆議。全體立法委員二分之一以上決議維持原案，行政院院長就應接受。立法院逾期沒有議決，原決議失效。 |
| Removing the President把總統免職 | The House impeaches; the Senate tries the case and convicts by two thirds of the members present.眾議院彈劾；參議院審判，出席議員三分之二同意即定罪。 | The Legislative Yuan impeaches, on the proposal of more than half and the vote of more than two thirds of all its members. The case then goes to the Constitutional Court, and the President is removed if the Court upholds it (Additional Articles 2, 4, and 5).立法院提出彈劾案，須經全體立法委員二分之一以上提議、三分之二以上決議；接著聲請司法院大法官審理，經憲法法庭判決成立，被彈劾人即解職（增修條文第 2、4、5 條）。 |
| Who decides what the constitution means誰來解釋憲法 | The ordinary federal courts, with the Supreme Court at the top. The power is not stated in the text; the Court explained it in 1803. Judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and serve during good behavior.一般的聯邦法院，最上面是最高法院。這項權力條文沒有明寫，最高法院在 1803 年說明了它的道理。法官由總統提名、參議院同意，品行端正即終身任職。 | The Judicial Yuan interprets the Constitution (Article 78). The Additional Articles provide for fifteen justices, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Legislative Yuan for terms of eight years, who also sit as the Constitutional Court (Additional Article 5).司法院解釋憲法（憲法第 78 條）。增修條文規定司法院設大法官十五人，由總統提名、經立法院同意任命，任期八年，並組成憲法法庭（增修條文第 5 條）。 |
中華民國憲法增修條文 第 3 條第 2 項第 2 款（覆議）Additional Articles of the Constitution, Article 3, Paragraph 2, Item 2 (reconsideration)
行政院對於立法院決議之法律案、預算案、條約案，如認為有窒礙難行時，得經總統之核可，於該決議案送達行政院十日內，移請立法院覆議。立法院對於行政院移請覆議案，應於送達十五日內作成決議。如為休會期間，立法院應於七日內自行集會，並於開議十五日內作成決議。覆議案逾期未議決者，原決議失效。覆議時，如經全體立法委員二分之一以上決議維持原案，行政院院長應即接受該決議。Official English translation: “Should the Executive Yuan deem a statutory, budgetary, or treaty bill passed by the Legislative Yuan difficult to execute, the Executive Yuan may, with the approval of the president of the Republic and within ten days of the bill's submission to the Executive Yuan, request the Legislative Yuan to reconsider the bill. The Legislative Yuan shall reach a resolution on the returned bill within 15 days after it is received. Should the Legislative Yuan be in recess, it shall convene of its own accord within seven days and reach a resolution within 15 days after the session begins. Should the Legislative Yuan not reach a resolution within the said period of time, the original bill shall become invalid. Should more than one-half of the total number of Legislative Yuan members uphold the original bill, the president of the Executive Yuan shall immediately accept the said bill.”
全國法規資料庫：中華民國憲法增修條文 ↗Laws & Regulations Database: Additional Articles (English) ↗
中華民國憲法增修條文 第 3 條第 2 項第 3 款（不信任案）Additional Articles of the Constitution, Article 3, Paragraph 2, Item 3 (vote of no confidence)
立法院得經全體立法委員三分之一以上連署，對行政院院長提出不信任案。不信任案提出七十二小時後，應於四十八小時內以記名投票表決之。如經全體立法委員二分之一以上贊成，行政院院長應於十日內提出辭職，並得同時呈請總統解散立法院；不信任案如未獲通過，一年內不得對同一行政院院長再提不信任案。Official English translation: “With the signatures of more than one-third of the total number of Legislative Yuan members, the Legislative Yuan may propose a no-confidence vote against the president of the Executive Yuan. Seventy-two hours after the no-confidence motion is made, an open-ballot vote shall be taken within 48 hours. Should more than one-half of the total number of Legislative Yuan members approve the motion, the president of the Executive Yuan shall tender his resignation within ten days, and at the same time may request that the president dissolve the Legislative Yuan. Should the no-confidence motion fail, the Legislative Yuan may not initiate another no-confidence motion against the same president of the Executive Yuan within one year.”
全國法規資料庫：中華民國憲法增修條文 ↗Laws & Regulations Database: Additional Articles (English) ↗
Two things to notice. First, the numbers differ: a returned bill needs two thirds of each of two houses in the United States and more than half of all members of the Legislative Yuan, which has one chamber, in Taiwan. Second, the default differs: an American bill left alone for ten days becomes law, while a request for reconsideration that is not decided in time causes the original bill to lapse. The text was checked against the Laws and Regulations Database in October 2026.有兩點可以注意。第一，數字不同：被退回的法案，在美國要兩院各三分之二才能維持，在台灣是全體立法委員二分之一以上（立法院只有一院）。第二，「沒有動作時」的結果不同：美國的法案放著十天不處理就成為法律；台灣的覆議案逾期沒有議決，原決議就失效。條文於 2026 年 10 月對過全國法規資料庫。
News English · 新聞英語
Listen to each term and its example sentence, then try making a sentence of your own. Most of the examples come from history.
先聽每個詞和例句，再試著自己造一句。例句大多取自歷史。
checks and balances制衡
the powers that let each branch limit the others讓每個部門都能限制其他部門的那些權力
The veto is part of the system of checks and balances.否決是制衡制度的一部分。
to veto a bill否決法案
(of a president) to refuse to sign a bill and send it back to Congress（總統）拒絕簽署法案並退回國會
George Washington was the first president to veto a bill, in 1792.華盛頓在 1792 年成為第一位否決法案的總統。
to override a veto推翻否決
(of Congress) to pass a vetoed bill again by two thirds of each house（國會）以兩院各三分之二再次通過被否決的法案
Congress did not manage to override a veto until 1845.國會直到 1845 年才第一次成功推翻否決。
to confirm a nominee同意提名人選
(of the Senate) to approve a person the president has nominated（參議院）同意總統提名的人選
In 1795 the Senate refused to confirm a nominee for chief justice.1795 年，參議院拒絕同意一位首席大法官的提名人選。
to impeach彈劾
(of the House) to bring formal charges against an official; it is not the same as removing the official（眾議院）對官員正式提出指控；彈劾不等於免職
The House voted to impeach President Andrew Johnson in 1868, but the Senate did not convict him.1868 年眾議院表決彈劾安德魯．詹森總統，但參議院沒有將他定罪。
judicial review司法審查
the power of courts to decide whether a law or an official act agrees with the Constitution法院判斷法律或官方作為是否合乎憲法的權力
The reasoning behind judicial review was set out in Marbury v. Madison.司法審查背後的道理，是在 Marbury v. Madison 案裡說明的。
the power of the purse錢包的權力（預算權）
Congress's control over what the government may spend國會對政府可以花多少錢的控制權
Under Article I, Congress holds the power of the purse.依第一條，錢包的權力在國會手上。
gridlock僵局
a situation in which the branches cannot agree and nothing gets passed各部門無法達成一致、什麼都通不過的狀況
Critics of divided power say that it leads to gridlock.批評權力分散的人說，這種制度會造成僵局。
Myth vs. Fact · 常見迷思
✗ Myth · 迷思Separation of powers means that each branch works alone in its own area.權力分立的意思是：每個部門各管各的，互不相干。
✓ Fact · 事實The branches are separate in their membership, but their powers overlap on purpose. The President takes part in lawmaking, the Senate in appointments, and the courts in judging what the other two have done. Madison's phrase for this was “partial agency.”三個部門的成員是分開的，權力卻刻意重疊：總統參與立法，參議院參與人事任命，法院則審查另外兩個部門做的事。麥迪遜把這叫做「部分的參與」。
✗ Myth · 迷思To impeach an official is to remove that official from office.彈劾一名官員，就是把他免職。
✓ Fact · 事實Impeachment is only the accusation, made by the House. Removal requires a trial in the Senate and a conviction by two thirds of the members present. As of 2026 the House has impeached officials twenty-two times, and eight have been convicted.彈劾只是指控，由眾議院提出。要免職，還得經過參議院審判，並由出席議員三分之二定罪。到 2026 年為止，眾議院彈劾過二十二次，被定罪的有八人。
✗ Myth · 迷思The Constitution says that the Supreme Court may strike down laws.憲法明文規定最高法院可以宣告法律無效。
✓ Fact · 事實It does not say so in words. The Supreme Court's own account is that “the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution,” though “it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document.” The Court set out the reasoning in Marbury v. Madison in 1803.條文裡沒有這樣的字句。最高法院自己的說明是：司法審查這項功能「在憲法中並無明文規定」，不過「在憲法通過之前就已經有人預期到它」。這項權力的道理，是最高法院在 1803 年的 Marbury v. Madison 案裡說明的。
✗ Myth · 迷思A veto kills a bill, and a bill cannot become law without the President's signature.否決就是法案的終點；沒有總統簽署，法案不可能成為法律。
✓ Fact · 事實There are two ways around the signature. Congress can override a veto by two thirds of each house, and a bill that the President neither signs nor returns within ten days becomes law if Congress is still in session. Only the pocket veto cannot be overridden.繞過簽署的路有兩條：國會可以用兩院各三分之二推翻否決；總統在十天內既不簽署也不退回的法案，只要國會還在開會，就自動成為法律。只有口袋否決是國會無法推翻的。
Activity 1 · 課堂或自學活動一
You need · 準備材料
Steps · 步驟
Many readers find no clause that plainly says a court may set a law aside; the nearest is Article III, Section 2, which extends the judicial power to cases “arising under this Constitution.” That is the point of the third myth card above.
很多人會發現：找不到哪一條明白寫著法院可以宣告法律無效；最接近的是第三條第二項，它讓司法權及於「因本憲法而生」的案件。這正是上面第三張迷思卡要說的。
Activity 2 · 課堂或自學活動二
You need · 準備材料
Steps · 步驟
In a class, three groups can play the House, the Senate, and the President, and pass a paper “bill” between them. Keep the subject of the bill light, so that the discussion stays on the procedure.
在班上可以分三組，分別扮演眾議院、參議院和總統，把一張紙做的「法案」傳來傳去。法案的主題選輕鬆一點的，討論才會留在程序上。
Go Further · 延伸閱讀
Sources · 資料出處
Quotations, dates, and numbers on this page were checked against these sources in October 2026. Quotations keep the spelling of the originals · 本頁的引文、日期與數字於 2026 年 10 月依下列資料查證；引文保留原文的拼法