三分钟英语课前演讲稿

时间：2023-01-13 15:36:53 演讲稿我要投稿

三分钟英语课前演讲稿

　　使用正确的写作思路书写演讲稿会更加事半功倍。在社会一步步向前发展的今天，演讲稿在演讲中起到的作用越来越大，你所见过的演讲稿是什么样的呢？以下是小编为大家收集的三分钟英语课前演讲稿，希望能够帮助到大家。

三分钟英语课前演讲稿

三分钟英语课前演讲稿1

　　If the Dream is Big Enough

　　你的梦想有多大?

　　I used to watch her from my kitchen window, she seemed so small as she muscled her way through the crowd of boys on the playground. The school was across the street from our home and I would often watch the kids as they play edduring recess. A sea of children, and yet to me, she stood out from them all.

　　我以前常常从厨房的窗户看到她穿梭于操场上的一群男孩子中间，她显得那么矮小。学校在我家的街对面，我可以经常看到孩子们在下课时间打球。尽管有一大群的孩子，但我觉得她跟其他的孩子截然不同。

　　I remember the first day I saw her playing basketball. I watched in wonder as she ran circles around the other kids. She managed to shoot jump shots just over their heads and into the net. The boys always tried to stop her but no one could. I began to notice her at other times, basketball in hand, playing alone.She would practice dribbling and shooting over and over again, sometimes until dark.

　　我记得第一天看到她打篮球的情景。看着她在其他孩子旁边兜来转去，我感到十分惊奇。她总是尽力地跳起投篮，球恰好越过那些孩子的头顶飞入篮筐。那些男孩总是拼命地阻止她，但没有人可以做得到。我开始注意到她有时候一个人打球。她一遍遍地练习运球和投篮，有时直到天黑。

　　One day I asked her why she practiced so much. She looked directly in my eyes and without a moment of hesitation she said, "I want to go to college. The only way I can go is if I get a scholarship. I like basketball. I decided that if I were good enough, I would get a scholarship. I am going to play college basketball.I want to be the best. My Daddy told me if the dream is big enough, the factsdon't count."

　　有一天我问她为什么这么刻苦地练习。她直视着我的.眼睛，不加思索地说:"我想上大学。只有获得奖学金我才能上大学。我喜欢打篮球，我想只要我打得好，我就能获得奖学金。我要到大学去打篮球。我想成为最棒的球员。我爸爸告诉我说，心中有目标，风雨不折腰。"

　　Then she smiled and ran towards the court to recap the routine I had seen over and over again. Well, I had to give it to her—she was determined.I watched her through those junior high years and into high school. Every week,she led her varsity team to victory.

　　说完她笑了笑，跑向篮球场，又开始我之前见过的一遍又一遍的练习。嘿，我服了她了——她是下定了决心了。我看着她这些年从初中升到高中。每个星期，她带领的学校篮球代表队都能够获胜。

　　dribbling ['drbl]n. 控球;漏泄 v. 滴下;垂涎(dribble的ing形式)

　　One day in her senior year, I saw her sitting in the grass, head cradled in her arms. I walked across the street and sat down in the cool grass beside her. Quietly I asked what was wrong. "Oh,nothing," came a soft reply. "I am just too short." The coach told her that at 5’5" she would probably never get to play for a top ranked team— much less offered a scholarship—so she should stop dreaming about college. She was heartbroken and I felt my own throat tighten as I sensed her disappointment. I asked her if she had talked to her dad about it yet.

　　高中那会儿的某一天，我看见她坐在草地上，头埋在臂弯里。我穿过街道，坐到她旁边的清凉的草地上。我轻轻地问出什么事了。"哦，没什么，"她轻声回答，"只是我太矮了。"原来篮球教练告诉她，以五英尺五英寸的身材，她几乎是没有机会到一流的球队去打球的——更不用说会获得奖学金了——所以她应该放弃想上大学的梦想。她很伤心，我也觉得自己的喉咙发紧，因为我感觉到了她的失望。我问她是否与她的爸爸谈过这件事。

　　She lifted her head from her hands and told me that her father said those coaches were wrong. They just did not understand the power of adream. He told her that if she really wanted to play for a good college, if she truly wanted a scholarship, that nothing could stop her except one thing — her own attitude. He told her again, "If the dream is big enough, the factsdon't count."

　　她从臂弯里抬起头，告诉我，她爸爸说那些教练错了。他们根本不懂得梦想的力量。他告诉她，如果真的想到一个好的大学去打篮球，如果她真的想获得奖学金，任何东西也不能阻止她，除非她自己不愿意。他又一次跟她说："心中有目标，风雨不折腰。"

　　The next year, as she and her team went to the Northern CaliforniaChampionship game, she was seen by a college recruiter. She was indeed offered a scholarship, a full ride, to a Division 1, women's basketball team. She was going to get the college education that she had dreamed of and worked toward for all those years.

　　第二年，当她和她的球队去参加北加利福尼亚州冠军赛时，她被一位大学的招生人员看中了。她真的获得了奖学金，一项全额奖学金，并且能进入美国全国大学体育协会的一队女子甲组篮球队。她将接受她曾梦想并为之奋斗多年的大学教育。

　　It's true: If the dream is big enough, the facts don't count.

　　是的，心中有目标，风雨不折腰。

三分钟英语课前演讲稿2

　　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." 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.

　　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." 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."

　　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.

【三分钟英语课前演讲稿】相关文章：