亚洲欧美精品沙发,日韩在线精品视频,亚洲Av每日更新在线观看,亚洲国产另类一区在线5

<pre id="hdphd"></pre>

  • <div id="hdphd"><small id="hdphd"></small></div>
      學習啦 > 演講與口才 > 演講口才 > 即興演講 > 有趣的二分鐘英語演講

      有趣的二分鐘英語演講

      時間: 睿檸1003 分享

      有趣的二分鐘英語演講

        英語是聯(lián)合國的工作語言之一。一些人認為低地蘇格蘭語是與英語最接近的一個獨立語言,而一些人則認為它是英語的一個方言。以下是學習啦小編整理了有趣的二分鐘英語演講,供你參考。

        有趣的二分鐘英語演講篇一

        thank you, mr. chairman.

        mr. chairman, i join my colleague mr. rangel in thanking you for giving the junior members of this committee the glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this inquiry. mr. chairman, you are a strong man, and it has not been easy but we have tried as best we can to give you as much assistance as possible.

        earlier today, we heard the beginning of the preamble to the constitution of the united states: "we, the people." it's a very eloquent beginning. but when that document was completed on the seventeenth of september in 1787, i was not included in that "we, the people." i felt somehow for many years that george washington and alexander hamilton just left me out by mistake. but through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision, i have finally been included in "we, the people."

        today i am an inquisitor. an hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that i feel right now. my faith in the constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. and i am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the constitution.

        "who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?" "the subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men."¹ and that's what we're talking about. in other words, [the jurisdiction comes] from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

        有趣的二分鐘英語演講篇二

        it is wrong, i suggest, it is a misreading of the constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the president should be removed from office. the constitution doesn't say that. the powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of the body of the legislature against and upon the encroachments of the executive. the division between the two branches of the legislature, the house and the senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the framers of this constitution were very astute. they did not make the accusers and the judgers -- and the judges the same person.

        we know the nature of impeachment. we've been talking about it awhile now. it is chiefly designed for the president and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. it is designed to "bridle" the executive if he engages in excesses. "it is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men."² the framers confided in the congress the power if need be, to remove the president in order to strike a delicate balance between a president swollen with power and grown tyrannical, and preservation of the independence of the executive.

        this morning, in a discussion of the evidence, we were told that the evidence which purports to support the allegations of misuse of the cia by the president is thin. we're told that that evidence is insufficient. what that recital of the evidence this morning did not include is what the president did know on june the 23rd, 1972.

        有趣的二分鐘英語演講篇三

        the nature of impeachment: a narrowly channeled exception to the separation-of-powers maxim. the federal convention of 1787 said that. it limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and opposed the term "maladministration." "it is to be used only for great misdemeanors," so it was said in the north carolina ratification convention. and in the virginia ratification convention: "we do not trust our liberty to a particular branch. we need one branch to check the other."

        "no one need be afraid" -- the north carolina ratification convention -- "no one need be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity." "prosecutions of impeachments will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community," said hamilton in the federalist papers, number 65. "we divide into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused."³ i do not mean political parties in that sense.

        the drawing of political lines goes to the motivation behind impeachment; but impeachment must proceed within the confines of the constitutional term "high crime[s] and misdemeanors." of the impeachment process, it was woodrow wilson who said that "nothing short of the grossest offenses against the plain law of the land will suffice to give them speed and effectiveness. indignation so great as to overgrow party interest may secure a conviction; but nothing else can."

        common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons. congress has a lot to do: appropriations, tax reform, health insurance, campaign finance reform, housing, environmental protection, energy sufficiency, mass transportation. pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. so today we are not being petty. we are trying to be big, because the task we have before us is a big one.

        猜你感興趣:

      1.二分鐘英文演講稿

      2.有趣的一分鐘英語演講稿

      3.英語演講稿2分鐘5篇

      4.英語演講稿2分鐘

      5.2分鐘勵志英語演講稿3篇

      6.一兩分鐘簡短的英語演講稿

      2946916