2. 考研
  3. Legal training is not a requirement to serve in Congress, although many of the members are, and have been, lawyers. Nor is it ne

Legal training is not a requirement to serve in Congress, although many of the members are, and have been, lawyers. Nor is it ne

admin2015-03-25  48
问题     Legal training is not a requirement to serve in Congress, although many of the members are, and have been, lawyers. Nor is it necessary for a House or Senate member to have served in another government post, although many have, and their experience at forging alliances and compromises has been helpful. We no longer have literacy tests for voters, a technique southern state’s used until the 1960s, effectively to disenfranchise African-American voters.
    Yet, it might not be a bad idea to require incoming members of Congress to take a basic test in civics.
    How else, other than an alarming misunderstanding of the basic of American government, to explain the effort of House Republicans to shut the Senate out of the budget process? Their sanctimoniously titled Government Shutdown Prevention Act would do just that, deeming that if the Senate failed to pass a measure to keep the government running amid the current budget dispute, that the House-passed version would become law.
    The idea is bizarre on so many levels—not least because the Senate would actually have to pass the Government Shutdown Prevention Act for the House to assume a dictatorial role in one of the three branches of the world’s greatest democracy. The current fashion of anti-intellectual-ism in politics aside, do the House Republicans not understand the elementary-school fundamentals of how a bill becomes a law?
    The freshman GOP lawmakers are annoyed with the Democratic-controlled Senate, this time for failing to cave in on the dramatic cuts the House Republicans want in the budget. Ask the House Democrats, who approved more than 300 bills in the last Congress that ended up dying in a Senate that failed to pass them or even consider them.
    But the rudimentary lesson of lawmaking are nowhere near as important as the lesson about getting things done in a country of diverse interests. The Tea Party crowd ran campaigns of anger and frustration, blaming Congress for its failure to get balanced budgets and myriad other things. There’s a reason for that, and it’s not because members are stupid or lazy or weak. It’s because this is a country of wildly divergent attitudes and perspectives, reflected in the lawmakers those citizens send to Congress. The Tea Partyers believe they were sent to Washington with a mission, and they likely were. So were Nancy Pelosi and other liberal members whose constituents have drastically different perspectives than those in the Tea Party team’s districts. And their views are no less valid.
    Legislating requires compromise, and compromise is hard, especially during times of economic stress. Being a congressman is a difficult job, forcing them to balance their districts’ needs with the national interest. The new members signed up for this job. They should do it.
The author quotes the example of Nancy Pelosi to show
选项 A、she is the first female speaker of the House of Representatives.
B、she has a close relationship with other liberal members.
C、her view is the most valid one.
D、how divergent the perspectives held by different parties are.
答案D
解析 推理判断题。由题干关键词Nancy Pelosi定位至第六段。在该段第三、四句作者指出权衡国家多重利益关系并不是像制定法律那样简单，因为国会中各个代表的立场和态度截然不同，其中最后两句提到了茶党、Nancy Pelosi和其他自由党派的立场，可见，作者用这些例子是为了说明不同党派观点的不同，故[D]符合文意；[A]和[B]文章没有提及，属无中生有，故排除；该段最后一句指出他们(茶党、自由党派等)的观点难分伯仲，[C]与文意相悖。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/Ih74777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)