羅斯福就職演講稿范文第1篇
就職演講：市長就職表態演講稿
各位代表、同志們：
今天，市十一屆人大一次會議選舉我為長春市市長。我的心情很激動，這是各位代表和全市人民對我的高度信任。對此，我表示衷心的感謝。
此時此刻，在莊嚴的國徽下，面對全市670萬人民的代表，我既感到使命光榮，更感到責任重大。我將在很高的基礎上開展工作，繼承的是上屆政府開創的大好局面，肩負的是世紀之交加快長春發展的重任。我一定撲下身子，竭盡全力地干工作，在全市人民的支持幫助和共同奮斗下，努力把長春建設得更加繁榮、發達和富強。
在今后的工作中，我一定要加強學習，高舉鄧小平理論偉大旗幟，用黨的十五大精神指導工作，不斷提高決策能力和工作水平。要講政治、顧大局、守紀律，在思想、行動上和以江澤民同志為核心的黨中央保持高度一致，認真貫徹執行省委、省政府和市委的各項決定，自覺接受人大及其常委會的法律監督和工作監督，團結好政府一班人，帶好機關干部隊伍，齊心協力做好政府工作。要廉潔從政，嚴格要求自己，不貪不占，不謀私利，不搞特權，并管住管好自己身邊的人，這一點請各位代表和同志們嚴格地監督我。
全心全意為人民服務是本屆政府的唯一宗旨。在市長的任期內，我要把為群眾謀利益作為自己全部工作的出發點和落腳點，不說空話、埋頭苦干，老老實實為人民群眾多辦一些實事，盡自己最大的努力去解除群眾的疾苦。面對困難和問題，絕不繞著走，不推卸責任，要敢于負責，堅持原則，以百折不撓的毅力和扎扎實實的作風開展各項工作，力爭做一個合格的、人民滿意的市長。
我生在長春，長在長春，大部分時間工作在長春，人民群眾是我的衣食父母。人民信任并選舉了我，把這么重要的崗位給了我，我感到，責任重于泰山!我絕不辜負人民的期望，一言一行都要對得起人民：不求個人名利，只求人民利益;不求事事爭先，只求經濟發展;不求個人榮辱，只求為民造福。我要把自己的一切都交給670萬長春人民，為實現跨世紀的宏偉藍圖而努力奮斗!
羅斯福就職演講稿范文第2篇
大家好：
我是程佳媛，很榮幸能被大家信任，成為融心志愿者社團的社長。首先向大家做一個簡短的自我介紹，我來自汾陽第四高級中學高一十班，從社團的發起到反展到現在的格局，我一路都在參與，可以說，融心社是我看著長大的。從開始的一名默默無聞的社員走到社長這樣的高度，對我來說是一次全新的挑戰。尤其是被大家信任，讓我更加樹立了要為社團做出自己貢獻的決心。只有這樣，我才能不辜負大家對我的信任和對志愿者的一片熱忱!
社長的工作繁瑣但很重要，它是社團正常運轉的關鍵紐帶。在社團召開會議、組織活動、人員管理、分數考核、日常監督等看似簡單實則關系社團發展的事情上，我的經驗還不是足夠豐富。但是，我會不斷提升自身水平。在今后的工作中，我會具體從以下幾方面做起：
一、加強人員溝通樹立良好形象
大家都知道社團在之前的工作中出現了嚴重的失誤，究其原因，重要的一點是內部人員之間的溝通協調出現了偏差。雖然換了新的領導班子，但與各位社員加強溝通交流，讓社內形成良好的工作氛圍還最重要的任務。在人事管理方面，應本著“以人為本、與人為善”的原則，關心社員的發展，急社員所急，想社員所想。積極聽取好的意見或建議。同時還要樹立自己的形象，認真負責的做好自己的本職工作。
二、努力鉆研社務提升專業水平
一個人的專業素質，是他在這個崗位上能否真正立足的先決條件。我深知，專業素質對我來說意味著不斷學習、不斷進步、不斷求索。我會利用在校學習的知識和以前工作的經驗與現實工作結合起來，認真地對待每一次活動、每一個問題。
三、積極為校服務追求工作質量
美麗的四中，需要我們大家一起來愛護，為校增光添彩是我們大家義不容辭的責任。把每一次活動做得更好是我們不懈的追求與目標。
我相信，在社團原有的基礎上，有了上級領導的關心、各位管理層的協作、各位社員的熱情以及我的努力，社團一定會有更好的發展!
讓我們一起愛我們的大四中，愛我們的志愿者社團吧!
我的演講完畢，謝謝大家!
程佳媛
羅斯福就職演講稿范文第3篇
潮江鄉人民政府鄉長謝理國
(2009年4月30日)
尊敬的上級領導、尊敬的各位代表、同志們：
今天，大家一致推選我為潮江鄉人民政府鄉長，我非常激動。在此，對大家的信任和支持表示衷心的感謝!
我于今年元月5號來潮江，時間雖短，但與潮江的干部群眾結下了深情厚意，對穿越小說網 http://潮江的山山水水，一草一木都產生了深厚的感情，我將把潮江作為我的第二故鄉。對同志們的信任和支持，我不想用更多的語言來表達，愿將感激之情化作一腔熱血，傾注到潮江的各項事業中，不遺余力和同志們一道把潮江的事情辦好。“不求今生今世做多大官，但求每天每日干點事。”“不求今日明拍手，但愿他日暗點頭”，這是我做人為官的基本信條。當有一天離開潮江后，同志們和潮江人民能想起我，這就是我最大的滿足。
既然潮江人民選擇了我，我將義無反顧，竭盡所能，恪盡職守，不負重托。
第一.勤奮干事。干事才能成事，實干方能興鄉。我一定以虛心的態度對待工作。在工作中學習，在學習中工作，虛心向老領導、老同志，向長者智者能者、向班子成員學習，虛心聽取各方面的意見，集中大家的智慧，匯合集體的力量。形成干事的合力。我一定以負責的精神面對困難，絕不怨天尤人，絕不回避推諉，我一定以扎實的作風狠抓落實。定下來的事情雷厲風行，抓緊實施;部署了的工作督促檢查，責任到人;關健時刻身先士卒，靠前指揮。我一定以堅持的韌性務求實效。堅持抓住重點工作不放松，抓住主要矛盾不放松，一抓到底，抓出成效;堅持科學發展本文來源：公務員在線http://觀，多做打基礎，管長遠的事，不搞形式主義，不做表面文章，力爭把潮江的事業做得更扎實，更到位，更有效。
第二，一心為民。潮江人民是我的衣食父母，也是潮江公職人員的衣食父母，我們工作的出發點和落腳點必須落實到為民服務，為民解難，為民造福，保民安寧上來。我會永遠牢記賦予我們的職責，把大多數群眾是否贊成，是否受益作為決策的主要依據，堅持統籌兼顧，長短結合。我會始終把改善民生作為施政理念，盡最大的可能解決好人民群眾最關心、最直接、最現實的問題。我會時刻關注群眾的日常生活，堅持群眾利益無小事，把群眾遇到的困難和問題，當作自己的事情來思考，來辦理，切實做到心中裝著百姓，腦中想著百姓，一切為了百姓，帶著良心和感謝干好工作。
第三，接受監督。我將切實擺正位置，把對黨負責與對人民負責統一起來，始終堅持黨的領導，堅決貫徹黨委的決策;始終堅持法律至上，帶頭學法、知法、用法，絕不以言代法，徇私枉法;牢固樹立人大意識，堅決執行人大通過的決議、決定，認真負責地向人大報告工作，自覺主動地接受人大的臨督，虛心聽取、認真辦理人大代表的議案、建議和意見。積極主動地開展民主協商，自覺接受政協委員和人民群眾的監督。
第四，廉潔從政。人民給我提供的是干事的平臺，在這個平臺上，我一定做到一清二白為政，絕不拿原則作交易，絕不以權力謀私利。堅持制度管人，按原則辦事，不搞特權，我一定強化修養，追求健康的生活情趣，潔身自好，嚴于律己，真正做到仰不負黨，俯不愧民。
我深知，自己的視野、能力和水平與要擔負的職責相比還有差距，我決心傾盡全力，扎實工作，以勤補拙，以廉立身;我深知，在全球影響加深，宏觀調控趨緊，瓶頸制約凸現，區域競爭加劇的形勢下，加快潮江發展既是十分緊迫的任務，又是十分艱巨的工程，但只要全鄉人民上下同心，團結奮斗，創業創新，就沒有邁不過的坎，沒有干不成的事，因此，我衷心地期望各位代表，在座的同志們能給予我一如既往的關心、理解和支持。
同志們，人民選擇了我，崗位就是責任，權力就是義務。讓我們攜起手來，團結帶領全鄉廣大干部和人民群眾，奮發有為，共同描繪出富強文明、充滿活動的新潮江而努力奮斗。
謝謝大家!
羅斯福就職演講稿范文第4篇
班主任就職演講范文
首先，我迷戀他人的成長，加拿大的教育學家范梅南說：教育學就是迷戀他人成長的學問。那么我們是不是可以這樣理解，教師參與孩子們的成長，就像守護一粒被播種的種子，給它足夠的陽光與雨露，然后靜侯花開。作為教師，我們有幸見證生命日新月異的變化，這其中的幸福外人是很難體會的，為了更好地體會這種幸福，我站在了這里。
其次，我想人生當中總有一些事情是我們要追尋的，我當然也不例外，只是我的追尋開始的比較晚。這是我從教的第十個年頭，但是就在現在、就在此刻我感覺到我的教育生涯才真正地開始。一直以來我崇拜一個人，這個人就是特蕾莎修女，她在全球有數以萬計的追隨者，在她創立的仁愛修女傳教會有數以萬計的義工在為他人服務。我迷戀她的人格和她在這個世界的行走方式，如果用她的理念來解讀教師這一職業，那么很多的問題將迎刃而解。我是這樣理解義工的：在我們做義工時，自我得到了拯救，靈魂得到了安慰?？墒俏覜]有找到入口，但是有句話給了我啟發，真正的教徒在教堂之外，也就是說，如果我在這里做不到，那么我在別處也做不到，如果我在這里是幸福的，那么我在別處也能是幸福的。我不用再去尋覓，班主任工作就是一個很好的入口。我聽從我內心的呼喚，就像我們祝校長說的，守護我們的心靈，所以我站在了這里。
再次，我要感謝高三這一年，感謝已畢業的孩子們，感謝我的已經畢業的孩子們，是他們給了我信心，讓我對教育再次充滿了激情。在我的語文課堂上經常出現這樣的情境：嗯，老師，人生可以是這個樣子?我們本以為人生會很灰色的。是什么樣的教育，讓我們的孩子在應該懷揣夢想、擁有激情的年齡，有這樣的困惑。紀伯倫有詩云：
生命的確是黑暗的，
除非有了激勵，
一切的激勵都是盲目的，
除非有了知識，
一切的知識都是徒然的，
除非有了夢想，
我們教給孩子們什么，教給他們知識，用這些知識干什么?我們激勵孩子們，激勵他們什么，激勵他們努力學習，但是努力學習又為了什么?只有有了夢想，所有的教育才會順理成章，孩子們在人生的奮斗路上才能體會到幸福。我想幫孩子們擁有夢想!但是語文教師的影響遠不及班主任的影響深遠，所以我想我該當班主任了。
鑒于以上原因所以我站在了這里，我想我將有可能長時間站在這里。
我今天要說的就這些，謝謝大家。
班主任就職演說
新上任班主任就職演講稿
作為班主任，我的理解是為學生服務的，什么是服務?服務就是尊重你們的個性，找出你們各自的閃光點，幫助你們樹立人生目標并一步一步實現你們的人生目標，滿足大家的合理要求等等。聽到這，有的同學可能會想：老師你是不是騙我們?我們都知道班主任是專門管學生的，沒聽說是為我們服務的，你也就是說說罷了，但事實上我是認真的。我畢業兩個月就開始做班主任工作，至今已有二十多年，這么年的工作經驗所得出的結論就是這一點，以前所帶的班曾被評為省、市級三好班級，個人曾獲得全國德育教育優秀工作者的稱號，我覺得這一切都是因為我這一理念：即把班主任從管理學生的角色轉變成服務學生的角色。同學們，從今天起，我就是~班的成員了，當然可以說是特殊的一員，請允許我稱之為首席成員，能成為這個集體的一員我感到很榮幸，不知道大家是否歡迎我，如果歡迎給點掌聲吧!!
俗話說：新官上任三把火。大家一定也想看我怎么燒這三把火?實際上我一把火也沒有，也不打算點火來嚇大家。為什么呢?一是我們北方現在雖已進入立秋的節氣，但天氣依然十分炎熱，相信大家都不冷，等哪天冷了咱們再燒火也不遲。二是我是學文科的出身，喜歡春風化雨，潤物無聲的那種心與心的溝通和交流，不喜歡程咬金的三斧頭，看似兇惡，實際上嚇唬人的，因為他就會這三下，往后沒招了。第三條也是最重要的原因，就是在座的各位經過九年的寒窗苦讀，能進入我們的錦州中學，一定都是極其優秀的學生，也許有的孩子說，我是花錢來的，那么既然能來，你們的心中就一定有個夢想，即未來的我一定要成為一個優秀的人，如此說來，我相信你們每個人都會做得很出色，所以我沒有必要拿誰開刀。但我希望大家都能夠竭盡全力去做每一件事，通過我們共同的努力，樹立起具有我們~~班特色的班級形象，將來某一天碰到有人問你：嗨，你幾班的?你告他(她)說：我是某某班的。對方接著就豎起大拇指說：~ 班的呀，厲害!這時你會什么感覺?相信只有一個字：爽!!
當然，家有家規，國有國法， 在校要遵守學校的規章制度，還有班級漸漸形成的各種制度、約定。這些對大家而言就是法律，依法治班，有法可依，有法必依，執法必嚴，違法必究，這一點決不含糊。作為一個班主任，我是要向學校負責的，當然，更要對同學們負責，我不在乎你們的過去，但我關心你們的未來，如果發現你有些做法會深刻影響到你未來的發展，這個問題我一定會緊抓，狠抓!
最后，請大家記?。簭慕袢掌?，我是錦中的學生，我是錦中~班的一分子，因此，不管什么時候，不管面對什么樣的困難，都不要放棄真誠，不要放棄善良，不要放棄希望，更不要放棄努力。即做一個真誠，善良，樂觀，向上的人，為自己的未來創造幸福，并給你的父母，親人及你周圍的人帶來幸福!同學們，我會時刻與你們在一起，為你們的努力加油!為你們的成功喝彩!
謝謝!
關于班主任就職演講
親愛的同學們，朋友們：
當我站在這講臺上，似乎感受到兩側的天鵝絨帷幕正緩緩拉開，最有生氣的戲劇就要開始了。當然，最令我興奮的是這戲劇擁有一大群忠于自己角色的演員――你們，高一(5)班的全體成員。這戲劇也許是世間較長的了，因為它要持續三年的時間――你們的整個高中階段。這戲劇也有廣闊的舞臺：教室、寢室、校園你們走到哪兒，哪兒就是你們的舞臺。為此，我愿意做一名熱情的報幕員，此時此刻，十分高興地向觀眾宣布：高一(5)班的戲劇開始了!
我想，我這個班主任，首先應該是一名合格的導演。我渴望導出充滿時代氣息的戲劇來：團結、緊張、嚴肅、活潑是它的主調;理解、友愛、開拓、創新應該是它的主要內容;愛著這個集體和被這個集體愛著是它的主要故事。作為導演，我將精心設計生動的情節、典型的角色、迷人的故事奉獻給所有的演員――在座的每一位，最大程度地開發你們的才華。
這舞臺是你們的，你們是當然的主角，為此，我甘心情愿地做一名配角，盡我的力量竭誠為主角服務、效勞。而在你們成功的演出中，我只想默默地分享一點點成功的快慰。
我還要做一名最虔誠的觀眾，為你們精誠的演出流淚，微笑，鼓掌、歡呼。我愿意握住每一位的手，誠心誠意地道一句：祝賀你成功!
三年之后，當你們要與自己的中學時代告別而登上人生的大舞臺時，你們會深深感到這小舞臺給予你的一切是多么珍貴，這是一段多么難忘的人生旅途。
三年之后，當我們高一(5)班的戲劇舞臺的大幕徐徐落下的時候，我愿意聽到你們這樣評價我的工作：老師，您是我們滿意的導演，也是一個不錯的配角，當然，還是一名虔誠的觀眾。為了這三年之后的評價，我的努力將從現在開始，雖然序幕剛剛拉開。
從你們的微笑里，從你們的眼神中，從你們熱烈的掌聲中，我感受到你們的理解和支持，這是我成功的基礎，更是我們成功的保證。
羅斯福就職演講稿范文第5篇
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 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 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
3 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
4 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
5 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
6 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."
羅斯福就職演講稿范文第6篇
走過了秋天，迎來了冬天。在這瑞雪飄飛的季節，我們盼望著，就像花蕾盼望綻放，就像孩童盼望過年，終于盼來了我們的相聚。在新年即將到來之際，請允許我向全體同事表達我心中最最真誠的問候和祝愿———問候一聲辛勤工作的我的同事們，你們辛苦了!祝愿一聲，無悔奉獻人生的我的同事們，你們新年好!
50多年的風雨兼程，民政工作幾經滄桑，卻始終沒有離開“上為政府分憂，下為百姓解愁”的宗旨。在人民最危難之時，我們代表黨伸出了救援之手，為幫助災民重建家園;當群眾遭受貧困困擾時，我們精心部署，辛勤工作，為人民構筑了“最后一道防線” ;我們以人為本，勇于開拓，為居民營造安居樂業的家園;我們為孤老殘幼的生計寢食不安，為改善人民的生活質量鞠躬盡瘁;我們為人民子弟兵解除后顧之憂，為軍隊和國防建設添磚加瓦;我們為長輩們奉獻愛心和孝心，為實現老有所養，老有所樂的目標籌謀策劃~~~~
而我作為一名參加工作不久的民政新成員，要向在座的各位同志學習，怎樣能把一個平凡的工作，做的如此的出色。和他們在一起工作我懂得了什么叫克盡職守;什么叫無私奉獻;什么叫開拓創新;什么叫銳意進取。這些在紙上看著是那么空洞的詞語，在工作中卻被他們詮釋的淋漓盡致。也許有些同志會說：“哎!咱們做的都是自己分內的事兒，沒什么好學習的。但是我想對你們說：“你們寶貴的工作經驗，樸實的工作作風，給我做出的就是生活中最真實的榜樣。”我一定會刻苦努力學習，熟悉各項有助于開展工作的業務知識，希望通過努力可以做到和各位一樣的一名合格的民政人。以優異的工作業績來感謝領導的關心、培養，感謝同事的支持、幫助，回報你們對我的期望。
作為一名民政人，我把民政比作一盞燈，一盞照亮所有黑夜中孤獨靈魂的明燈，巴金老人的燈曾經使他微笑面對生活，我們民政這盞長明燈將更亮更暖，而我愿是這燈光中的一朵小火花，捎去民政人的心愿，投入這壯麗的事業中!
民政局長就職演說稿
縣人大主任、副主任、各位委員：
首先感謝組織對我的信任和關心，如果我能夠繼續擔任民政局長一職，我要自覺接受縣人大常委會的監督，堅持在縣委、縣政府的的領導下，切實履行民政局長職責，按照一手抓業務工作、一手抓隊伍建設的要求，為我縣經濟建設和社會穩定作貢獻。具體來說，本人將努力做到：
一、努力當好班長，抓好領導班子建設，為民政業務發展和民政隊伍建設提供組織和領導保證。本人將進一步加強民政業務和政治理論學習，特別是要認真學習好、貫徹好鄧小平理論和“三個代表”重要思想，確保自己的素質過硬、作風過硬，以自己的勤政廉政的工作形象帶動和影響班子成員，增強班子的凝聚力、號召力和戰斗力。
三、加強黨風廉政建設和機關效能建設，廉潔自律，勤政廉政，嚴格依法行政，為民政對象服務，切實轉變工作作風，樹立民政隊伍的良好形象。
四、自覺接受人大常委會的監督，切實加強與人大常委會、人大代表的溝通聯絡，主動向人大匯報請示工作，自覺接受人大常委會、人大代表和人民群眾的監督。