5分钟的英语演讲稿范文（精选5篇）
i believe in our future
honorable judges, fellow students: good afternoon!
recently, ther is a heated debate in our society. the college students are the beneficiaries of a rare privilege, who receive exceptional education at extraordinary places. but will we be able to face the challenge and support ourselves against all odds? will we be able to better the lives of others? will we be able to accept the responsibility of building the future of our country?
the cynics say the college students are the pampered lost generation, which would cringe at the slightest discomfort. but the cynics are wrong. the college students i see are eagerly learning about how to live independently. we help each other clean the dormitory, go shopping and bargain together, and take part time jobs to supplement our pocket money.
the cynics say we care for nothing other than grades; and we neglect the need for character cultivation. but again, the cynics are wrong. we care deeply for each other, we cherish freedom, we treasure justice, and we seek truth. last week, thousands of my fellow students had their blood type tested in order to make a contribution for the children who suffer from blood cancer.
as college students, we are adolescents at the critical turning point in our lives. we all face a fundamental choice: cynicism or faith, each will profoundly impact our future, or even the future of our country. i believe in all my fellow classmates. though we are still inexperienced and even a little bit childish. i believe that we have the courage and faith to meet any challenge and take on our responsibilities. we are preparing to assume new responsibilities and tasks, and to use the education we have received to make our world a better place. i believein our future.
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.
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.
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.
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.
the president did know that it was republican money, that it was money from the committee for the re-election of the president, which was found in the possession of one of the burglars arrested on june the 17th. what the president did know on the 23rd of june was the prior activities of e. howard hunt, which included his participation in the break-in of daniel ellsberg's psychiatrist, which included howard hunt's participation in the dita beard itt affair, which included howard hunt's fabrication of cables designed to discredit the kennedy administration.
we were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the president of the united states. there has not even been an obfuscated indication that this committee would receive any additional materials from the president. the committee subpoena is outstanding, and if the president wants to supply that material, the committee sits here. the fact is that on yesterday, the american people waited with great anxiety for eight hours, not knowing whether their president would obey an order of the supreme court of the united states.
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.
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.
The president did know that it was republican money, that it was money from the committee for the re-election of the president, which was found in the possession of one of the burglars arrested on june the 17th. what the president did know on the 23rd of june was the prior activities of e. howard hunt, which included his participation in the break-in of daniel ellsberg's psychiatrist, which included howard hunt's participation in the dita beard itt affair, which included howard hunt's fabrication of cables designed to discredit the kennedy administration.
We were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the president of the united states. there has not even been an obfuscated indication that this committee would receive any additional materials from the president. the committee subpoena is outstanding, and if the president wants to supply that material, the committee sits here. the fact is that on yesterday, the american people waited with great anxiety for eight hours, not knowing whether their president would obey an order of the supreme court of the united states.
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." and that's what we're talking about. in other words, [the jurisdiction comes] from the abuse or violation of some public trust.
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." 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.