第一篇：公安检察员的就职演说
校长的就职演说
统一思想明确责任
努力拼搏争当一流
同善初中校长李忠民 同志们：
我校的现状：
我校地处垣曲县边陲，交通闭塞，经济也不发达。学生人数较少，基础相对薄弱。近几年各科骨干教师调出较多，新调出的教师虽然积极性很高，但是缺乏教学经验，缺乏对教材和《课程标准》的熟悉，缺乏对中考试题的研究，把握命题动向的能力。
我校的危机：
根据当前社会现状：独生子女比较多，家长“望子成龙，望女成凤”心情迫切，没有好的教育教学质量，不能满足家长的需要;社会各界人士对学校的关注程度不断增大，没有好的教育教学质量，不能满足社会的要求;全县只有七所公立初中各个校长风华正茂，各校教师藏龙卧虎，大胆课改，锐意创新的浪潮一浪高过一浪。如果我们不居安思危，将落到全县的最后一名。
试想：到那时我们有何颜面走在同善镇的大街上?我们怎样面对历山的父老乡亲?我们怎样给教育局、镇政府各位领导提要求，谈条件?会出现学生大量外流，我校将濒临撤校并点的局面，各位教师将在名誉、地位、经济上受到损失。因此，我们要深感责任重大，我们的工作关乎着千家万户，关乎着社会各界，关乎着历山镇的未来，更关乎着自己的命运与事业。
思想的统一：
同志们，“世上无难事，只要有心人”，我很欣赏蒲松龄的对联“有心人，天不负，破釜沉舟百二秦关终属楚，有志者，事竟成，卧薪尝胆三千越甲可吞吴。”我相信，我们同善初中的教师只要有信心，一定能把教育教学质量搞上去。
不要说：“学生基础差”。学生基础不差能显出你的水平吗?只有能战胜困难和挫折的人才是强者。历史上项羽的“破釜沉舟”，周瑜的“火烧赤壁”，曹操的官渡之战，毛泽东的“四渡赤水”都是在外围条件极端艰苦条件下实现的，充分显示了他们的聪明睿智和非凡的军事才能，在历史上留下美名，千古流芳。我们虽然是小人物，不可能干出惊天骇地的大事，但是，在我们的小天地里，同样有着展示智慧和才能的平台，同样有着赞誉和奖励，同样有着掌声和鲜花。
那么我们怎样才能获得这些殊荣呢?早上不起床的人永远不会成为奥运明星，不练嗓子的人永远不会成为歌唱家，不付出艰辛的人永远不会成功。
我们作为同善初中的主人，要想使他成为大山中的明星，必须树立雄心大志，在我们共同努力下，一年立校，二年强校，三年创一流;必须齐心协力像越王勾践一样“卧薪尝胆”，使我校在竞争浪潮中立于不败之地;必须发扬“亮剑”精神，敢于迎难而上，不屈不挠，顽强拼搏，提高自身素质，为“五年河东教育看垣曲”谱写新的篇章。 措施与方法：
一、打造名师工程：主管教学的闫校长负责制定名师的标准，各位教
师要在思想素质上不断学习《教师职业道德规范》、学习名师案例，培养自己乐于奉献优良品质，乐于从教的思想素质。在业务素质上开展校本教研、网络教研、连片教研与自身研做中考试题把握命题动向相结合;钻研《课程标准》、熟悉教材、了解学生与备课相结合;课堂疑惑、教后记、反思与知识落实(小组合作、“四清”运动、满分卷过关、错题本)相结合;态度与成绩相结合;教学成绩与综合评价相结合;本学年打造一批我校的名师，使他们在各种待遇上都得到优惠。
二、主管政教的武校长负责十佳学生标准，开展主题班会，每月我校将举办一个主题班会，“有智无德是废材，有智有德是英材“。自古以来，教育家都很重视学生的德育教育。德育是学生的灵魂，有什么样的德就决定他成什么样的才。所以，学校教育教育，应该是先教学生做人再教学生知识。
利用主题班会的方法来矫正学生的行为，开展比纪律、比卫生、比习惯、比学习、比活动，实行月月有活动，月月有考核，天天有比较公示，采用多种形式评价。
九月份，入学教育，对各年级学生的行为习惯有严格明确的要求，根据校情制定细致入微的具体要求，使学生明确什么该做，什么不该做，应该怎么做。开展“怎样做一个合格的中学生”演讲比赛活动。 十月份，感恩教育，结合贫困生补助、观看名人的演讲。要求学生给家长谈一次话，了解挣钱的难处，要求学生利用假期挣一元钱，写出体会。开展“珍惜一分钱”比赛活动。
十一月份，集体教育，结合期中考试、秋季运动会、各种活动评比，要求学生为我班级荣誉干几件事。开展“爱我班级，爱我校园”征文活动。
十二月份，励志教育，结合半学期的中学生活总结，通过观看“励志教育”各种名家演讲，确立自己德育、智育、体育、美育中各个细化的奋斗目标，明确“参照物”，采取不断比对，督促前进的方式，不断学习和改掉自己的陋习。一份上交，一份张贴到各班级的墙壁上。 元月份，大评比，政教处、教导处首先要制定出班级、学生在各个方面取得成绩的量化考核方案，对准每个班级、学生进行量化考核，进行计分，评出各种明星，公开大力表彰。召开大型的家长会，利用学校的专栏公开宣传。
二月份，真情永驻，利用寒假的压岁钱为贫困生捐助，政教处积极倡导珍惜友谊之情，搜集贫困学生的真实材料宣传到位，唤起学生的同情心、怜悯心和友谊之情，进行公开捐助。
三月份，传统教育，利用学习雷锋的节日和植树节，政教处开展比赛做好事和植树种花活动，使每位学生懂得“美化校园从小事做起”、“绿化校园从我做起”，勇于做好学校主人。
四月份，集体教育，结合期中考试、春季运动会、各种活动评比，要求学生为我班级荣誉干几件事。开展“爱我班级，爱我校园”征文活动。
五月份，诚信教育，要求每个学生通过剖析自己，提示别人的方式，开展批评和自我批评，力求做到：讲诚信，以诚感人，求真、求是。
政教处组织“以诚为本”演讲会。
六月份，大评比，政教处、教导处首先要制定出班级、学生在各个方面取得成绩的量化考核方案，对准每个班级、学生进行量化考核，进行计分，评出各种明星，公开大力表彰。召开大型的家长会，利用学校的专栏公开宣传。
七月份，安全教育，在暑假来临之前，政教处组织学生召开安全大会，教育学生防水、防火、防汛、防震、防交通安全常识，是每个学生能够“高兴回家，愉快度假，安全返校”。
各班班主任根据主题确定班会方式，始终如一坚持，把学生笼罩在“比先创优”的氛围中，使学生在正气中健康成长。
三、打造高效课堂：在开全课程，开足课时的条件下，如果没有高效课堂，是很难完成教育教学任务的。因此，我们必须常见我校的教学模式：自主学习-------合作探究------------教师释疑--------当堂检测。除此而外一定要想好办法达到高效，如我们利用多媒体展示
1、学习目标。
2、自学问题。
3、合作探究问题。
4、当堂检测习题。板书突出重点、突破难点的方法及措施和规律。易错、易混知识点的比较和使用等等。设计好各个环节的问题，写好教后记，使每节课教师和学生都有较大的收益。
第二篇：乡长当选的就职演说
尊敬的各位代表，同志们：
承蒙各位代表的厚爱，选举我为乡人民政府乡长，这不仅是对我的一种认同与接受，更是对我的一份希望和重托，在此，我表示最衷心的感谢。我深知这个职位责任重大、任务艰巨，为了更好的履行工作职责，我将努力做好以下几方面工作：
一、深入基层调查研究。我将尽快熟悉和掌握红星乡的乡情乡貌，尽快把握经济和社会发展的总体脉络，力求对各项事业有一个历史的、客观的感知认识。在吃透乡情乡貌的前提下，对那些牵动红星经济发展的全局性问题，做系统深入分析，进一步理清思路，树立市场经济前提下谋求快发展、大发展的科学的发展观。
二、全面贯彻落实中央、省、市、区各次
范文网【】
第三篇：完整的林肯就职演说
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861
Fellow-Citizens of the United States:
In compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President before he enters on the execution of this office."
I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that--
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully
given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed 4
than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.
It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as
acontract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence 6
within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and Ishall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there
will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight
can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.
I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different
practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive- slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be
ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.
Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can
not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.
By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break
our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. 永久联邦与总统权力 亚伯拉罕-林肯 第一次就职演讲
星期一,1861年3月4日
我今天正式宣誓时，并没有保留意见，也无意以任何苛刻的标准来解释宪法和法律，尽管我不想具体指明国会通过的哪些法案是适合施行的•但我确实要建议，所有的人，不论处于官方还是私人的地位，都得遵守那些未被废止的法令，这比泰然自若地认为其中某个法案是违背宪法的而去触犯它，要稳当得多。
自从第一任总统根据我国宪法就职以来已经72年了。在此期间，有15位十分杰出的公民相继主持了政府的行政部门。他们在许多艰难险阻中履行职责，大致说来都很成功。然而，虽有这样的先例，我现在开始担任这个按宪法规定任期只有短暂4年的同一职务时，却处 17
在巨大而特殊的困难之下。联邦的分裂，在此以前只是一种威胁，现在却已成为可怕的行动。
从一般法律和宪法角度来考虑，我认为由各州组成的联邦是永久性的。在合国政府的根本法中，永久性即使没有明确规定，也是不盲而喻的。我们有把握说，从来没有哪个正规政府在自己的组织法中列入一项要结束自己执政的条款。继续执行我国宪法明文规定的条款，联邦就将永远存在，毁灭联邦是办不到的，除非采取宪法本身未予规定的某种行动。再者：假如合众国不是名副其实的政府，而只是具有契约性质的各州的联盟，那么，作为一种契约，这个联盟能够毫无争议地由纬约各方中的少数加以取消吗?缔约的一方可以违约——也可以说毁约——但是，合法地废止契约难道不需要缔约各方全都同意吗?从这些一般原则在下推，我们认为，从法律上来说，联邦是永久性的这一主张已经为联邦本身的历史所证实。联邦的历史比宪法长久得多。事实上，它在1774年就根据《联合条款》组成了。1776年，《独立宣言》使它臻子成熟并持续下来。1778年《邦联条款》使联邦愈趋成熟，当时的13个州都信誓旦旦地明确保证联邦应该永存，最后，1787年制定宪法时所宣市的日标之一就是“建设更完善的联邦”。
但是，如果联邦竟能由一个州或几个州按照法律加以取消的话，那么联邦就不如制宪前完善了，因为它丧失了永久性这个重要因素。
根据这些观点，任何一个州都不能只凭自己的动仪就能合法地脱离联邦;凡为此目的而作出的决议和法令在法律上都是无效的，任何一个州或几个州反对合众国当局的暴力行动都应根据憎况视为叛乱或革命。因此，我认为，根据宪法和法律，联邦是不容分裂的;我将按宪法本身明确授予我的权限，就自己能力所及，使联邦法律得以在各州忠实执行。我认为这仅仅是我份内的职责，我将以可行的方法去完成，除非我的合法主人——美国人民，不给予我必要的手段，或以权威的方式作出相反的指示，我相信大家下会把这看作是一种威胁，而只看作是联邦已宣布过的目标：它将按照宪法保卫和维护它自身。
以自然条件而言，我们是不能分开的，我们无法把各个地区彼此挪开，也无法在彼此之间筑起一堵无法逾越的墙垣。夫妻可以离婚，不再见面，互不接触，但是我们国家的各个地区就不可能那样做。它们仍得面对面地相处，它们之间还得有或者友好或者敌对的交往。那么，分开之后的交往是否可能比分开之前更有好处，更令人满意呢?外人之间订立条约难道还比朋友之间制定法律容易吗?外人之间执行条约难道还比朋友之间执行法律忠实吗?假定你们进行战争•你们不可能永远打下去;在双方损失惨重，任何一方都得不到好处之后，你们就会停止战斗，那时你们还会遇到诸如交往条件之类的老问题。
总统的一切权力来自人民，但人民没有授权给他为各州的分离规定条件。如果人民有此意愿，那他们可以这样做，而作为总统来说， 19
则不可能这样做。他的责任是管理交给他的这一届政府，井将它完整地移交给他的继任者。
为什么我们不能对人民所具有的最高的公正抱有坚韧的信念呢?世界上还有比这更好或一样好的希望吗?在我何日前的分歧中，难道双方都缺乏相信自己正确的信心吗?如果万国全能的主宰以其永恒的真理和正义支持你北方这一边，或者支持你南方这一边，那么，那种真理和那种正义必将通过美国人民这个伟大法庭的裁决而取得胜利。
就是这些美国人民，通过我们现有的政府结构，明智地只给他们的公仆很小的权力，使他们不能力害作恶，并且同样明智地每隔很短的时间就把那小小的权力收回到自己手中。只要人民保持其力量和警惕，无论怎样作恶和愚蠢的执政人员都不能在短短4年的任期内十分严重地损害政府。我的同胞们，大家平静而认真地思考整个这一问题吧。任何宝贵的东西都下会因为从容对待而丧失，假使有一个目标火急地催促你们中随便哪一位采取一个措施，而你决不能不慌不忙，那么那个目标会因从容对待而落空;但是，任何好的目标是不会因为从容对待而落空的，你们现在感到不满意的人仍然有着原来的、完好元损的宪法，而且，在敏感问题上，你们有着自己根据这部宪法制定的各项法律;而新的一届政府即使想改变这两种情况，也没有直接的权力那样做。那些不满意的人在这场争论中即使被承认是站在正确的一边，也没有一点正当理由采取鲁莽的行动。理智、爱国精神、基行教 20
义以及对从不抛弃这片幸福土地的上帝的信仰，这些仍然能以最好的方式来解决我们目前的一切困难。不满意的同胞们，内战这个重大问题的关键掌握在你们手中，而不掌握在我手中，政府不会对你们发动攻击。你们不当挑衅者，就下会面临冲突。你们没有对天发誓要毁灭政府，而我却要立下最庄严的誓言：“坚守、维护和捍卫合众国宪法。”我不愿意就此结束演说。我们不是敌人，而是朋友。我们一定不要成为敌人。尽管情绪紧张，也决不应割断我们之间的感情纽带。记忆的神秘琴弦，从每一个战场和爱国志上的坟墓伸向这片广阔土地上的每一颗跳动的心和家庭，必将再度被我们善良的夭性所拨响，那时就会高奏起联邦大团结的乐章。
21
第四篇：我的校长就职演说
尊敬的各位领导，各位同仁：
大家下午好!
彭元杰校长高升为石鼓镇中心学校业务副校长，县局就把我从环山交流到较场中学任职，我坚决服从，能熔入你们的火炉，我感到荣幸。9号，周局长等来到我乡宣布了我任较场中学校长的任职决定，并对分水乡教育的未来发展提出了殷切的希望和要求，同时，对我个人寄予了厚望。今天，中心学校送我赴任，并得到较场中学教师的热烈欢迎，我首先对局党委的信任、中心学校的关怀和全体教师的支持表示深深的谢意!
较场中学正处于最风华正茂的时刻：校门口横幅醒目，又一项新纪录诞生。我校教科研长期在全乡处于领先地位，学校的质量评估已经多年位居全县前列。在这样的时刻到任，我深知自己肩头的分量，因为在他的背后是局党委的信任、是校长的肯定、是全体师生的期望、是五百名学生家长的重托。虽然，我从22岁起就担任环山中学的校长，但毕竟那和如今所在的单位完全不一样，无论是教师的构成还是教学的规模都有天壤之别，在一个地方当校长当久了，也没有觉得工作有什么压力，如今31岁了，担任较中的校长，我确实感到了这个责任的重大。但是，一是好在在前任彭校长带领下，较中经过多年的艰苦奋斗，办学条件有了根本性改变，学校管理走上规范化和正规化轨道，教育质量也稳居全县前列，办学的品位与育人的氛围都已经良性地形成和发展，为今后的学校发展奠定了良好的基础;二是好在有睿智的方校长、经验丰富郑书记等中心学校一班人带领我们一起前行;三是学校有一支责任心强，敢于负责，善于管理，团结奋进的领导班子队伍;四是好在学校有一支成
熟有为，敬业奉献、积极向上的教师群体。这“四好”，是学校的宝贵财富，是我们行动的标杆和精神的动力，因此，有了这“四好”，我才有信心将较中的教育事业推向一个新的发展水平。
各位领导，在座的同仁们，以后，我们就要一起共事了，大家一定想了解我——一个几乎又是年龄最小的人就职之后的做法吧?在此我想说五句话，与大家共勉，作为与大家沟通的基础，也作为今天的见面礼。
第一句话是服从并遵从。在组织上，服从上级组织的任职决定，遵从上级的安排，精彩完成好上级组织交给的各项任务。勤奋敬业，不辱使命。“激情成就梦想，热情铸就事业，真情造就发展。”没有激情做不成大事;永葆热情才能真正办好教育;教师、学生和学校的发展需要我们付出一腔真诚和一片真情。我想很多时候人是凭着责任心和使命感在做事的，这是我们成就大业的法宝。
第二句话是联系与沟通。在工作中，增强与各部门的联系，争取各级组织和有关部门的支持;增强和县局各部门及全体教职工的沟通，努力营造一个同心同德，团结一致干实事、谋发展的积极进取和谐环境。 凝心聚力，同心同德。古语说：“兄弟同心，其利断金”。1 +1是大于2的。所以，任何时候我们都要团结一致，同心同德。在我们这个浩大的团队里，即使只要是为了发展有不同的意见，那也是优美的和声，而不应该出现刺耳的杂音。大事讲原则，小事讲风格。不利于团结的话不说，不利于团结的事不做。切实增强团队意识、整体意识和大局意识，努力干好工作。我带来一颗心。除了布置工作和检查工作，大家就是同志朋友的联系，手足之间以诚相待。我要用自己的心换同志们的心。
第三句话是继承与发展。在事业上，继承和发扬上届领导班子优良的工作作风和取得的巨大成绩，进一步加大发展力度，拓宽发展领域，实现新的突破。制度第一，校长第二。 在学校，任何人不能凌驾于制度之上。尤其是作为学校领导，要身先士卒，带头执行各项制度，在学校的管理中，我们要特别强调执行力。我带来了一只碗。平时，碗口总是向上，什么意见都能装，一定广采众议，悉心听取;形成了决议碗口朝下，包括我在内，谁也不能轻易再翻动——要执行集中指导下的广泛民主，在广泛民主的基础上的最大集中。同时，还要用它装满“水”，举起来，大家看端得平不平。
第四句话，追求细节，做好小事。细节决定成败。追求细节，就是追求一种精致化的管理。我们的学校，规模大，就越要精致化，至于说到小事，我认为学校所有的小事就是我们学校领导的大事。立大志，做小事。做教育，需要这样一种大处着眼，小处着手的姿态;需要宏阔高远的视野，更需要精耕细作的勤恳。我要用血汗写下今后的历史，交上合格的答卷。
各位领导，各位同仁，俗话说：“进了一个门、就是一家人”。从环山中学到较场中学，工作环境变了，角色变了，但不变的是对教育事业的无限热爱。自跨进较场中学大门的那刻起，我就是较场中学的一员，从此这里的一花一草、一事一物就成为我生命里的一部分，与我息息相关，不可分割。我坚信：只要你真能做到陶行知先生说的“捧着一颗心来，不带半根草去”的奉献精神与磊落情怀，那么，无论你身在哪里，无论在何工作岗位，无论你有无官衔，教育的明天一定会更加美好。
第五篇：就职演说的文体分析
A General Stylistic Analysis of the Inaugural Address of Gorge Bush, the 41st President of the United States of America, on January 20, 1989
------UNITY, DIVERSITY AND GENEROSITY
Abstract: (omitted)
Key words: (omitted)
黄中军
I. Introduction
From the Stylistics point of view, the inaugural address of the president elect falls into the category of Public speech, which is more formal than everyday conversation, extemporaneous speech and advertisement but less formal than legal English and English for science and technology (EST). From the communication point of view it falls between spoken and written English. Therefore the inaugural address of the president has the characteristics of both spoken and written English. It uses a lot of big words and abstract nouns and is usually polite in tone, formal in style and complicated in sentence structure. In addition, the addresser often employs a wide variety of rhetorical devices so as to add a striking effect to it.
II. Linguistic analysis
A. Lexical style markers
Like most inaugural addresses of the president elect, the address delivered by Mr. Gorge Bush also employs a lot of big words. For instance, among the 1378 words (in the selected parts) there are 256 words containing more than 6 letters, occupying 22 percent of the1
total. But in every day conversation, extemporaneous speech and
advertisement the percentage is usually lower than 20 percent.
Another characteristic is the employment of many abstract nouns,
which can make the speech sound more formal and profound, make
the addresser sound more serious and erudite and make the audience
have more confidence in the speaker. In the speech of Gorge Bush it
is not hard to find so many such words. Here I just want to list some
of them as an example: unity, diversity, generosity, expression,
continuity, democracy, difference, continuance, freedom, action,
prosperity, satisfaction, liberty, justice, engagement, peace, dissension, harmony, divisiveness, limitation, bipartisanship, opposition, attitude,
intolerance, scourge, hopefulness.
B. Syntactical style markers
The inaugural address of the president elect usually uses a lot more compound or complex sentences than everyday conversation, extemporaneous speech and advertisement. This is also true of Mr. Bush’s address, in which most of the sentences are relatively long and complicated for the purpose of leaving the audience an immediate impression of formalness, seriousness and reliability. In the speech there are altogether 91 sentences, but 42 of them are compound or complex, taking up almost half of the total. In addition, most sentences in the speech contain more than 10 words and the longest sentence consists of 48 words! ( the 2nd sentence in the 16th paragraph) But as we know, in everyday conversation most sentences contain no more than 10 words.
As it is expected, the declarative sentence is the main type in the address but some other sentence types are also employed. For
Example, Mr. Bush uses several imperative sentences in his speech such as, “ Let us negotiate soon—and hard. But in the end, let us produce.” The use of imperative sentences here actually serves as a call to the audience and aims to arouse their enthusiasm.
C. Grammatical style markers.
As we know, the commonly used tense in the presidential inaugural address is the simple present, while the future tense, the present perfect tense and the simple past tense serve as the supplementary devices. This is because such addresses usually focus on the present and future time. Mr. Bush’s address is no exception. Among the 91 sentences in the speech there are over 60 simple present, 9 present perfect and 6 future tense. As for the voices, there are only 7 sentences in the passive and all the others are in the active.
D. Rhetorical devices
The rhetorical device is a striking characteristic of public speech, which can add vividness and aesthetic appreciation to it.
Although there are a wide variety of rhetorical devices in English, the most important syntactical rhetorical device in public speech is perhaps parallelism, which can perfectly convey the strong feelings of the speaker, leave a deep impression to the audience, and make the language more rhythmic and vivid. In the speech of Mr. Bush, parallelism is used in many paragraphs.
Example: parallelism
Great nations of the world are moving toward democracy---through the door to freedom. Men and women of the
world move toward free markets---through the door to prosperity. The people of the world agitate for free expression and free thought---through the door to moral and intellectual satisfactions that only liberty allows.
We know what works: Freedom works. We know what’s right:Freedom is right. We know how to secure a more just and prosperous life for man on earth: through free markets, …
We don’t have to talk into the night about which form ofgovernment is better. We don’t have to wrest justice from the kings---we only have to summon it from within ourselves.
Some other rhetorical devices such as antithesis, repetition,alliteration, simile, metaphor, climax, oxymoron are also used in the address for various purposes---to emphasize, to contrast, to convince, to add vividness, to express strong feelings, to create a sense of rhythm or to add the beauty of the language.
Examples:
We need compromise; we’ve had dissension. We need harmony;we’ve had a chorus of discordant voices. (antithesis)
Our problems are large, but our heart is larger. Our challenges aregreat, but our will is greater. (antithesis)
And if our flaws are endless, God’s love is truly
boundless.(antithesis)
A new breeze is blowing. ( repetition. repeated three times)
( alliteration)
. (simile)
calling. (simile)
…(simile)
I don’t seek “on men’s souls.” (metaphor)
For the first time in this century---for the first time in perhaps allHistory…(climax)
You are part of this day, you are part of the life of our great nation.(climax)
To my friends---and yes, I do mean friends---in the(oxymoron)
For .(contrast)
III. Conclusion.
We have analyzed the inaugural address of Mr. Gorge Bush from the linguistic perspectives. Here Mr. Bush uses all types of linguistic devices to make his speech more vivid, persuasive and convincing. Personally I think and I believe it is a very successful speech.
Bibliographies
Dong, Qingming, General Stylistics for Graduate Students. Beijing:
Capital Normal University, 2000.
Pan, lin, Dong, qiming, A General Stylistic Analysis of the Magazine
Advertisement---Colgate Total, Beijing: Capital Normal University,
2000.
王建华，1995，《美国总统就职演说名篇》。上海：世界图书出版公司。
王佐良，丁往道, 1987，<<英语文体学引论>>。北京：外语教学与
研究出版社。
王守元，2000，<<英语文体学要略>>，山东：山东大学出版社。附录: 美国41任总统布什1989 年1月20日就职演说稿(部分
段落删节)。