Each system also has a smaller number of intermediate appellate courts. These courts hear appeals from the trial courts. An appeal is a claim by the losing party that the lower court has made a mistake of law. Usually, a losing party is entitled to one appeal as a matter of right.
每个系统中还有少量的中级上诉法院。这些法院负责处理上诉。当败诉方认为下级法院作出了错误决定时可以针对该决定提出上诉。通常情况下，败诉方的当然地拥有上诉权。
These state courts handled all judicial matters, such as criminal cases, private civil disputes, and family law matters such as divorce and adoption, etc. The framers of the Constitution agreed, however, that a national judiciary was also necessary, at the very least a Supreme Court, which could be the final arbiter on matters of federal law. Therefore, Article III of the Constitution provides for a Supreme Court and gives Congress the power to establish other, lower courts.
这些州法院处理所有司法事务，如刑事案件，私人民事纠纷，家庭案件（如离婚和收养事项等）。宪法的制定者认为，也有必要为联邦设立一个司法机构，至少是一个最高法院，以便担当联邦法律问题最终仲裁者的角色。因此，宪法第三条设立了最高法院，同时也授权国会设立其他下级法院。

All appeals to the United States Supreme Court, whether from a state Supreme Court or from a federal Court of Appeals, are discretionary. The person bringing the appeal (called the petitioner) files a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Court has total discretion as to whether it wants to hear a particular case or not. It takes four votes from the nine justices to grant the writ of certiorari and hear the case. The Court usually basis its decision on the importance of the legal issue involved to the country as a whole.
所有向联邦最高法院提出的上诉，无论是来自州最高法院还是联邦法院上诉法院，都由联邦最高法院决定是否受理。上诉人将首先向最高法院申请受理自己的上诉。最高法院对是否受理该案拥有自由裁量权。九名大法官中至少有四名大法官投赞成票法院方受理该案。最高法院考量是否受理时通常视该案相对于整个联邦法律适用的影响程度。
When issuing decisions, all courts must follow binding precedent — that is their decisions must follow any rulings made by courts above them. On questions of the interpretation of the United States Constitution and statutes passed by Congress, the United States Supreme Court has the final say. All other courts, both federal and state, must follow any precedent set by the Supreme Court.
在作出判决时，所有法院都必须遵循有约束力的先例，也就是说，每个法院必须遵循任何比它级别高的法院所作出的任何约束性裁决。在释宪及对国会通过的法律进行解释方面，最高法院拥有专属权力。所有其他法院，不论是联邦法院还是州法院，都必须遵循最高法院的在先判例。

The doctrine of stare decisis is somewhat different than that of precedent. Stare decisis is the desire of most courts to follow their own precedent, even when they are not required to. For example, once the Supreme Court has decided an issue of federal law, they are free to change their mind in some later case. But they are normally quite reluctant to do so, even if there has been a change of justices on the Court and the new members do not agree with the old ruling. They are much more likely to distinguish the older case when asked to apply it in a slightly different situation. In this way, the older doctrine may change, but more gradually, over time.

自身先例原则与遵循先例原则稍有不同。自身先例是指大多数法院希望遵循自己以前作出的判例，即使没有人强迫他们那么做。例如，一旦最高法院已就某一联邦法律适用作出判决，并不意味着他们以后不能自由地改变原来的观点。但他们通常很不情愿改变自己从前的观点，即使在合议庭有了新的法官，而新的法官并不赞同旧有判决时，情况也是一样。他们更习惯于用旧的原则衡量过去的案件，而用新的原则衡量新的案件。这样一来，旧的原则就会随着时间推移渐渐发生改变。

The Supreme Court has the power to and does occasionally completely reverse an existing precedent. Although they can do so both as to statutory and constitutional issues, they often state that they are less likely to do so in matters of statutory construction. This is because if Congress disagrees with the Court’s interpretation of a statute, it may amend the law to change the result.

最高法院有权否认在先判例，而且他们偶尔也会这样干一次。虽然他们这样的行为看上去很象是在确立与宪法及法律相关的原则，但通常他们都会表示自己不会涉入立法者的角色。国会如果不同意最高法院以判决方式对法律进行的解释，完全可以修改法律以阐述自己对某一原则的立场。
According to President Franklin Roosevelt, “Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again.” Sen. Henry Clay said it “was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity—unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity.” Justice Hugo Black carried one with him virtually all the time. The object of all this admiration? The U.S. Constitution. To be sure, the Constitution has its flaws and its share of detractors, but most Americans take great pride in their charter. And why not? It is, after all, the world’s oldest written constitution.
富兰克林•罗斯福总统说过：“这部宪法就象圣经，值得被人们一遍遍反复阅读。”参议员克莱•亨利说：“不只是对那些当时存在的一代，对于无限的、不确定的后人来说，该部宪法都是一笔财富”。法官胡果•布莱克几乎是随身携带该宪法。一切荣耀归于这部美国宪法。可以肯定的是，这部宪法有它的缺陷，也有一部分人批评它，但大多数美国人仍然为它感到非常自豪。这毕竟是，世界上最早的成文宪法。
But even before the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress had selected a group of delegates to make recommendations for the formation of a national government. Composed of representatives of each of the thirteen colonies, this committee labored for several months to produce a proposal for a national charter, the Articles of Confederation.
在独立宣言获得通过之前，大陆会议就选出了代表以筹备成立联邦政府。为响应十三个殖民地的全体代表的提议，这些人辛劳数月草拟出了这部宪法。
This is not to suggest that controversies surrounding the Constitution no longer exist. To the contrary, charges abound that the document has retained an elitist or otherwise biased flavor. Some argue that the amending process is too cumbersome, that it is too slanted toward the will of the majority. Others point to the Supreme Court as the culprit, asserting that its interpretation of the document—particularly at certain points in history—has reinforced the biases of the Framers.

这并不意味着围绕着宪法的争议就此消失了，恰恰相反，反对者指控该宪法仍有精英主义或偏见的倾向。有人认为，修宪程序过于繁琐，是偏向于多数人意见。其他人认为最高法院的罪过在于通过对宪法的解释强化了制宪者在宪法文本中所留存的偏见。

One of the fundamental weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation was its failure to establish a strong and authoritative federal government. It created a national legislature, but that body had few powers, and those it did have were kept in check by the states. The new Constitution overcame this deficiency by creating a national government with three branches—the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary—and by providing each with significant power and authority within its sphere. Moreover, the three newly devised institutions were constitutionally and politically independent from one another.
宪法的根本弱点之一是未能建立一个强大而富有权威的联邦政府。它创造了一个立法机构，但该机构没有多少权力，而且现有的一点权力还得指望各州信守诺言予以让渡。新宪法创建了立法机关、行政机关、司法机关，并区别领域地给予此三机关以相当大的权力，从而弥补了前述之缺陷，此外，此三机构从宪法及政治角度来讲都系相互独立。
But institutional powers are only one side of the coin. The other side—constraints on those powers—is also worthy of consideration. The Framers not only endowed each branch with distinct power and authority over its own sphere, but also provided explicit checks on the exercise of those powers such that each branch can impose limits on the primary functions of the others. The Framers also made the institutions responsible to different sets of constituencies. They took these steps—creating an intricate system of checks and balances—because they feared the concentration of powers in a single branch.
但赋予三机构以权力只是硬币的一面，如何实现硬币的另一面，也就是达成对权力的制约，同样值得思虑。制宪者不仅赋予三机构以不同的权力及在各自领域的权威，也设定各机关都可以对其他机关的最主要功能形成制约。制宪者也规定不同的机构负责不同的领域。他们之所以通过这些步骤，创建一个复杂的制衡系统，是因为他们最担心的就是权力集中于一个单独的机构。
May Congress call for the creation of a commission, with members, including judges, to be appointed by the president, that would create mandatory sentencing guidelines for federal judges and that would be located within the judicial branch?
国会能否建立一个机构，该机构内的法官及其他成员都由总统任命？这会不会在司法部门中形成了一种强制性的审判指南？