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  54
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.
What can we infer from the first paragraph?
选项 A、People have to be a lawyer if they want to serve in Congress.
B、People must have worked in Senate if they are good at building alliance.
C、People in southern states have to pass the literary test if they want to vote before 1960s.
D、People would be good at compromising after serving in House.
答案C
解析 推理判断题。根据题干提示定位至第一段。由该段第三句可知，截止到20世纪60年代，在南方各州所有参加投票的人都要通过文化测试，由此可推知人们要想参加某些州的竞选，必须先要通过文化测试，故[C]正确。该段第一句指出国会成员不一定要接受法律培训，可见国会议员不一定非要是律师，故排除[A]；第二句指出在其他政府部门任职的经历可能对建立联盟和协商有帮助，但擅长建立同盟的人不一定是在参议院工作过，故排除[B]；同理，在下议院任职后也不一定就擅长妥协和折中，故排除[D]。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/nh74777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)