三分鐘英語演講稿的範文
三分鐘的時間很短，只能寥寥說幾段話，那麼我們該如何說好這三分鐘呢?下面是小編為你整理的幾篇，希望能幫到你喲。
篇一
the winter holiday is coming. i am very excited. i want to better my holiday plan. now let me tell you my plan.
i’m going to read some books and listen to music and relax for a few days first. on the fifth day, i’m going to do my homework. of course, i’m also going to do some housework. lunar new year’s day, i’m going to take a trip with my parents. i think it must be very happy. i can hardly wait!
in the first six days of february, i’m going to visit my relatives. it’s going to be fun! after a few days, i’m going to finish my homework, because i am going back to my school on february 16th.
篇二
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.
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.
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.
at this point, i would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the actions the president has engaged in. impeachment criteria: james madison, from the virginia ratification convention. "if the president be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached."
we have heard time and time again that the evidence reflects the payment to defendants money. the president had knowledge that these funds were being paid and these were funds collected for the 1972 presidential campaign. we know that the president met with mr. henry petersen 27 times to discuss matters related to watergate, and immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were implicated in the information mr. petersen was receiving. the words are: "if the president is connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person, he may be impeached."
justice story: "impeachment" is attended -- "is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations." we know about the huston plan. we know about the break-in of the psychiatrist's office. we know that there was absolute complete direction on september 3rd when the president indicated that a surreptitious entry had been made in dr. fielding's office, after having met with mr. ehrlichman and mr. young. "protect their rights." "rescue their liberties from violation."
the carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: those are impeachable "who behave amiss or betray their public trust."4 beginning shortly after the watergate break-in and continuing to the present time, the president has engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. moreover, the president has made public announcements and assertions bearing on the watergate case, which the evidence will show he knew to be false. these assertions, false assertions, impeachable, those who misbehave. those who "behave amiss or betray the public trust."
james madison again at the constitutional convention: "a president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the constitution." the constitution charges the president with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the president has counseled his aides to commit perjury, willfully disregard the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, conceal surreptitious entry, attempt to compromise a federal judge, while publicly displaying his cooperation with the processes of criminal justice. "a president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the constitution."
if the impeachment provision in the constitution of the united states will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder.
has the president committed offenses, and planned, and directed, and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the constitution will not tolerate? that's the question. we know that. we know the question. we should now forthwith proceed to answer the question. it is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.
i yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman.
篇三
a few years ago, i felt like i was stuck in a rut, so i decided to follow in the footsteps of the great american philosopher, morgan spurlock, and try something new for 30 days. the idea is actually pretty simple. think about something you’ve always wanted to add to your life and try it for the next 30 days. it turns out, 30 days is just about the right amount of time to add a new habit or subtract a habit — like watching the news — from your life.
幾年前， 我感覺對老一套感到枯燥乏味， 所以我決定追隨偉大的美國哲學家摩根·斯普爾洛克的腳步，嘗試做新事情30天。這個想法的確是非常簡單。考慮下，你常想在你生命中做的一些事情 接下來30天嘗試做這些。 這就是，30天剛好是這麼一段合適的時間 去養成一個新的習慣或者改掉一個習慣——例如看新聞——在你生活中。
there’s a few things i learned while doing these 30-day challenges. the first was, instead of the months flying by, forgotten, the time was much more memorable. this was part of a challenge i did to take a picture everyday for a month. and i remember exactly where i was and what i was doing that day. i also noticed that as i started to do more and harder 30-day challenges, my self-confidence grew. i went from desk-dwelling computer nerd to the kind of guy who bikes to work — for fun. even last year, i ended up hiking up mt. kilimanjaro, the highest mountain in africa. i would never have been that adventurous before i started my 30-day challenges.
當我在30天做這些挑戰性事情時，我學到以下一些事。第一件事是，取代了飛逝而過易被遺忘的歲月的是 這段時間非常的更加令人難忘。挑戰的一部分是要一個月內每天我要去拍攝一張照片。我清楚地記得那一天我所處的位置我都在幹什麼。我也注意到隨著我開始做更多的，更難的30天裡具有挑戰性的事時，我自信心也增強了。我從一個臺式計算機宅男極客變成了一個愛騎自行車去工作的人——為了玩樂。甚至去年，我完成了在非洲最高山峰乞力馬扎羅山的遠足。在我開始這30天做挑戰性的事之前我從來沒有這樣熱愛冒險過。
i also figured out that if you really want something badly enough, you can do anything for 30 days. have you ever wanted to write a novel? every november, tens of thousands of people try to write their own 50,000 word novel from scratch in 30 days. it turns out, all you have to do is write 1,667 words a day for a month. so i did. by the way, the secret is not to go to sleep until you’ve written your words for the day. you might be sleep-deprived, but you’ll finish your novel. now is my book the next great american novel? no. i wrote it in a month. it’s awful. but for the rest of my life, if i meet john hodgman at a ted party, i don’t have to say, “i’m a computer scientist.” no, no, if i want to i can say, “i’m a novelist.”
我也認識到如果你真想一些槽糕透頂的事，你可以在30天裡做這些事。你曾想寫小說嗎?每年11月，數以萬計的人們在30天裡，從零起點嘗試寫他們自己的5萬字小說。這結果就是，你所要去做的事就是每天寫1667個字要寫一個月。所以我做到了。順便說一下，祕密在於除非在一天裡你已經寫完了1667個字，要不你就甭想睡覺。你可能被剝奪睡眠，但你將會完成你的小說。那麼我寫的書會是下一部偉大的美國小說嗎?不是的。我在一個月內寫完它。它看上去太可怕了。但在我的餘生，如果我在一個ted聚會上遇見約翰·霍奇曼，我不必開口說，“我是一個電腦科學家。”不，不會的，如果我願意我可以說，“我是一個小說家。”
laughter
笑聲
so here’s one last thing i’d like to mention. i learned that when i made small, sustainable changes, things i could keep doing, they were more likely to stick. there’s nothing wrong with big, crazy challenges. in fact, they’re a ton of fun. but they’re less likely to stick. when i gave up sugar for 30 days, day 31 looked like this.
我這兒想提的最後一件事。當我做些小的、持續性的變化，我可以不斷嘗試做的事時，我學到我可以把它們更容易地堅持做下來。這和又大又瘋狂的具有挑戰性的事情無關。事實上，它們的樂趣無窮。但是，它們就不太可能堅持做下來。當我在30天裡拒絕吃糖果，31天后看上去就像這樣。
laughter
笑聲
so here’s my question to you: what are you waiting for? i guarantee you the next 30 days are going to pass whether you like it or not, so why not think about something you have always wanted to try and give it a shot for the next 30 days.
所以我給大家提的問題是：大家還在等什麼呀?我保準大家在未來的30天定會經歷你喜歡或者不喜歡的事，那麼為什麼不考慮一些你常想做的嘗試並在未來30天裡試試給自己一個機會。
thanks.
謝謝。