Question

请法律英语高手帮我翻译下这文章，特急

Part There Provisions for Amendment

The authors of the Constitution were keenly aware that changes would be needed from time to time if the Constitution were to endure and keep pace with the growth of the nation. They were also conscious that the process of change should not be facile, permitting ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. By the same token, they wanted to assure that a minority could not block action desired by most of the people.
Their solution was to devise a dual process by which the Constitution could be changed. The Congress, by a two-thirds vote in each house, may initiate an amendment. Or the legislatures of two=thirds of the states may ask Congress to call a national convention to discuss and draft amendments. In either case, amendments must have the approval of the three-fourths of the states before they enter into force.
Aside from the direct process of changing the Constitution itself, the effect of its provisions may be changed by judicial interpretation. Early in the history of the republic, in the landmark case of Marbury vs. Madison, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review ,which is the power of the Court to interpret acts of Congress and decide their constitutionality. The doctrine also embraces the power of the Court to explain the meaning of various sections of the Constitution as they apply the changing legal, political, economic and social conditions . Over the years, a series of Court decisions , on issues ranging from governmental regulation of radio and television to the rights of the accused in criminal cases, has had the effect of altering the thrust of constitutional law, with no substantive change in the Constitution itself.
Congressional legislation ,passed to implement provisions of the basic law, or to adapt it to changing conditions , also broadens and , in subtle ways, changes the meaning of the Constitution. Up to a point ,the rules and regulations of the myriad agencies of the federal government may have a similar effect. The acid test in both cases is whether ,in the opinion of the courts ,such legislation and rules are in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Constitution itself.

Answer 1

上面显然是翻译工具翻出来的 我的翻译如下：

第三部分：修正案条例
宪法的制订者们敏锐地认识到，宪法要想有长久的生命力并跟得上国家发展的步伐，必须不时地进行修改。他们同时也认识到，修正宪法的过程不能轻率而导致不良法案轻易通过。同样，他们不希望少数人阻止多数人期待的法案的通过。
他们解决问题的办法是设计出一个双重的程序来修改宪法。国会每院三分之二投票可以提出一项宪法修正案。或者三分之二立法委员可以要求国会召开全国性会议去讨论和起草宪法修正案。在上述任何一种情形下，宪法修正案必须获得四分之三以上同意才能生效。
除了改变宪法本身的修改过程以外，宪法条文的意思可以通过司法解释而改变。在共和国早期历史上，在里程碑式案子Marbury vs. Madison一案中，最高法院确立了司法审查制度，即法院有权解释国会的立法并审查它们是否违背宪法。多年过去了，法院的一系列判决，涉及的内容从政府对广播、电视的立法到刑事案件中被告人的权利，都改变了宪法，却没有从根本上改变宪法本身。
为了实施基本法的条文或者改变实施条件的国会立法，拓宽了或者说很微妙地改变了宪法的内容。从一定意义上来讲，联邦政府各个机构的规章和制度也有同样的效果。在两种情况下的酸性测试是，在法院看来，这些立法和规章是否符合宪法本身的内容和目的。

Answer 2

在那里对于改善分开准备

组织的作家锐利地了解，如果组织会忍耐而且赶上国家的生长，变化会被需要时常。 他们也是有意识的变化的程序不应该是温和的, 允许构想拙劣的而且匆忙地通过了改善。 藉着相同的表征，他们想要保证少数无法阻塞被大部份人需要的行动。
他们的解决将设计在组织可能被改变方面所依据的一个双重程序。 国会, 藉着每楝房子的一个三分之二个选票, 可能开始一个改善。 或二的 legislatures=州中的第三个可能要求国会呼叫一个国家的大会讨论并且起草改善。 在任一情况，在他们参与力量之前，改善一定有州中的四分之三个的赞成。
除了变更组织本身的直接程序之外，它的准备的效果可能被司法解释改变。 早在共和国的历史中，在 Marbury 和麦迪逊比较的划时代的情形，最高法院建立了司法检讨的教义 ,这是解释国会的行为而且决定他们的构成能力的法院的力量。 当他们应用的时候，教义也接受法院的力量解释组织的各种不同区段的意义那变更合法的，政治上的，和经济的和社会的情况。 在数年之上, 一系列的法院判决 , 在排范围从收音机和电视的政治规则到权利的议题上那在刑事案件控告, 已经有改变宪法的推进的效果, 藉由没有组织本身的实词变化。
国会的立法 ,传给实现基本法律的准备, 或使它配合变更情况 , 也变宽而且，在敏感的方面，改变组织的意义。 决定于点 ,联邦政府的无数代理商的规则和规则可能有相似的效果。 严峻的考查在两者的情况是否 ,在法院的意见，如此的立法和规则依照组织本身的意图和目的。