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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
good afternoon:
honorable judges,dear teachers and close friends.i’m very glad to stand here to share my speech with you.today i’m going to talk about dreams.
everyone has a dream.
martin luther king had a dream-and we can all recall his civil rights speech.phil knight had a dream-and now the whole world knows his nike slogan“just do it”!
i also have a dream,but not only a simple one.
when i was in primary school,my dream was that i would be a doctor when i grew up.i’ll be the first person who produces a new medicine.this kind of medicine can make teachers relax when they are busy correcting their students’ exercises and preparing their lessons.because one day when i woke up at midnight,i found my father,a senior chinese teacher,was still busy with his work.i was deeply moved.i wish my father could be healthy and relaxed every minute.
now i’m a senior grade two student,all my classmates and i are working hard,we all know the college entrance examination which will come in the year of is a big problem for us.we must study harder and harder in order to go to a good university,then when we finish our school,we can find a good job in society.my dream is also that.though now i’m not good at study,i’ll try my best.
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.
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."
And some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. we must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. and we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. if it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.
over the past two years, as i have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as i have called for radical departures from the destruction of vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. at the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: "why are you speaking about the war, dr. king?" "why are you joining the voices of dissent?" "peace and civil rights don't mix," they say. "aren't you hurting the cause of your people," they ask? and when i hear them, though i often understand the source of their concern, i am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Today I want to tell you a story about one of my friends, a lovely and smart girl who is always ready to help others. Being our grade leader, she is good at both work and study. In many people's opinion, she is excellent and perfect. But one day she told me she was gloomy and insecure. People around her considered her outstanding and flawless, thinking she could handle everything. But the more she thought about herself, the more disappointed she became. She found that she was far from perfection. Last week, she didn’t do well in her French quiz, and the day before yesterday, she was late for a conference. She felt depressed and frustrated, because she failed to be a perfect girl without any mistakes.
I was surprised to hear that for I thought she had every reason to be confident. However, the expectation of perfection has become a burden to her. I told her no one could be perfect and I suggested she find her own position.
In fact, people are so eager to be perfect that they demand too much of themselves. They want to be special and unique, and they want to have no defects or weaknesses. However, we can never avoid mistakes and errors. It’s impossible for us to be a superman or a superwoman. No matter how successful we are, there are always some flaws. If we hold that everything should be perfect, we would be overcritical.
My friend now has changed her attitude. She accepts her shortcomings but still keeps a positive outlook. She is even more active and doesn’t allow the mistakes to hinder her pursuit of excellence. And I think that’s the way we should be!That’s all. Thank you!
I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. i join you in this meeting because i am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: clergy and laymen concerned about vietnam. the recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and i found myself in full accord when i read its opening lines: "a time comes when silence is betrayal." and that time has come for us in relation to vietnam.
the truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.
To seize every opportunity to prove yourself to everyone , to prove that you can meet the challenge. to those who say you can never succeed , you will fail to prove , and this is my opinion. if someone says you are the injured , to slump , and for me, if someone suffered this injury might quit , but kobe can not do this . others say it under your die, i would say that you so that you may quit . so i have to prove it to them , especially to my fans who support me , love , i have to win their own , to win the pain , can return to the game . so as to allow those who doubt me rethink what is the impossible becomes possible. the importance of these scars is reflected in here , these scars are my shift reflects growing .
as a player, i was born with a passion to succeed , you want to win. but also the most important thing in life the hardest thing . as a player , you want to go to the stadium to meet the biggest challenge , i think the biggest challenge is to bring people into the team like a man as to constantly , constantly win, this is the biggest challenge the team of athletic competition , this is exactly my passion . for me personally, the most important thing is to continue to meet the challenge, and never afraid of challenges is extremely important.
三優範文網