I'm from Allentown, PA, which is north of Philadelphia, and I'm a sophomore studying physics and economics.

My Facebook profile is located at http://psu.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1457730077

Second Speech

Comments

Your eye contact needs further improvement. Nice intro; the quote served to be a good attention getter. Nervous jestures seemed to improve as the speech progressed. Nice tone and body language. While tone was was well presented the fluency of dialog is in need of improvement; work on breathing here. Conclusion felt abrupt. Overall a well presented speech.

Michael Chiang: I liked your references to your speech. However you looked down on your notecards too much, which caused you to speak too fast. I also liked how you used the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in your speech to tell us distinctly our points.

Jess Mannion:You showed improvement in posture and delivery of your second speech!! It was evident that you used the advice offered to you and you seemed much more confident! Your visual aid was creative, in addition to being informative. It was a good decision to hand it out after you were finished speaking. I would just suggest working to maintain solid eye contact, relying less on your note cards. Also work on varying your tone, to avoid sounding too monotonous.

Nicole: Ryan, great job! I found your topic really interesting, because I love politics! I liked how you made your credibility really clear and told us about the research you did. You had a really solid structure and an interesting speech. Make sure that you work on your flow and eye contact, and to stay calm when you get nervous. You have definately improved! Bang up job!

Scot Brown: Really work on breath control. Focus on breathing out when you speak, and don't take extra pauses to breathe out (no sighing). And especially don't take pauses in the middle of sentences. You also gave us a hand out at the end, but that seemed really tacked on, like it was just there to satisfy the visual aid requirement. Even though you chose to give it out at the end (which is a good idea), at least give some explanation or dissection of the cartoon presented.

Liz Peters: You are still a little soft spoken and were hard to hear at times. You also need to work on eye contact and pulling in the audience. I liked how you mentioned that she quoted the constitution which showed her creditability and also gave you more creditability. Good job.

!

!

Outline

1) Introduction

a) Under what circumstances should the President of the United States be removed from office?

i) This was the question Barbara Jordan answered with her speech to the House Judiciary Committee.

b) I have previously presented an overview of the historical context of Barbara Jordan’s speech and its components.

i) I have continued to research both and will now present more information on the arguments of the speech.

c) As I detailed in my first speech, President Nixon was facing impeachment due to the Watergate scandal.

i) Watergate is the name of the scandal that embroiled the nation from 1972 until Nixon’s resignation in 1974.

(1) There was plentiful evidence linking President Nixon to obstruction of justice, and abusing the Office of the President to violate citizens’ constitutional rights. (Farnsworth)

(2) House Resolution 803 was passed 410-4 to give the House Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether or not articles of impeachment should be proposed against President Nixon.

(a) It was in this context that Jordan gave her famous speech to the House Judiciary Committee on July 25th, 1974 in support of proposing the articles of impeachment.

d) Congresswoman Jordan’s speech to the House Judiciary Committee contained several strong arguments for the impeachment of President Nixon which were effectively made through the use of rhetorical techniques and through the support of the Constitution and the words of the founding fathers.

e) First, I will discuss what made Jordan’s arguments so strong.

2) Congresswoman Jordan’s arguments for the impeachment of President Nixon were clearly drawn from the Constitution and the writings of the founding fathers.

a) Jordan’s speech can be broken down into three main parts.

i) The first part was meant to establish her credibility in the proceedings and the credibility of impeachment in general.

(1) To establish her credibility, she quoted the Federalist Papers, specifically number 65, which said, “Who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?” (Hamilton, 1778)

(a) She would quote this source many times again, along with several other arguments made by the writers of the Constitution.

(b) This links her credibility to the credibility of the founding fathers.

(i) This was very effective for her, as we still hold the founding fathers, such as James Madison, in high esteem.

(c) Specifically, this quote argues that those who should be able to judge for the nation should be the ones who represent or are elected by the nation, such as those in Congress.

ii) The second part reviews the arguments in favor of the impeachment process as a whole.

(1) Members of the House Judiciary Committee were debating whether or not impeachment was suitable or even constitutional.

(a) Some felt that impeachment should only be proposed if they are sure that Nixon should be removed from office.

(i) She argued that this was a misreading of the Constitution, and that impeachment “is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account.” (Jordan, 1974)

1. That is, not solely for the removal of the President.

(b) Furthermore, some argued that this was nothing more than a political ploy by the Democrats who at the time controlled Congress, to embarrass the Republican Party, or that there were better things for Congress to do than to have a witch hunt against the President. (Naughton, 1974)

(i) She therefore argued, through the judicious quotation of former presidents, that impeachment could only be successful if the will of a great and indignant majority is in support of it.

1. This was to demonstrate that if Nixon was impeached, it would not be because of political affiliation, but because his acts were offensive enough to draw ire from his own party.

(c) Finally, it was argued that impeachment should be delayed, in order to receive further evidence from the White House.

(i) To this, Jordan responded, “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.”

iii) The third and final part discusses why Nixon should be impeached in the context of the desires of the founding fathers.

(1) Her first argument in this part focuses on one of James Madison’s impeachment criteria that he gave at the Virginia ratification convention, which stated that, “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."

(a) Jordan argued that Nixon knew that money from his reelection campaign fund was being given to defendants of Watergate related trials in order to buy their silence, and thus was worthy of impeachment.

(2) Her second argument involved the violation of the constitutional rights of citizens.

(a) According to Supreme Court Justice Story, "Impeachment 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." (Story, 1833)

(i) Jordan claimed that President Nixon directed his conspirators to violate the rights of Dr. Fielding by breaking into his office in order to obtain confidential information on one of his clients.

(3) Thirdly, she argued by the criterion of the Carolina ratification convention, that a President is impeachable "who behaves amiss or betrays their public trust." (Story, 1833)

(a) She stated that President Nixon had knowingly made false statements to the American people.

(4) Fourth, and finally, her coup de’grace quoted James Madison at the Constitutional Convention as saying, “A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.” (Madison, 1787)

(a) She followed this by claiming that Nixon had subverted the duty of the Executive to, in her words, take “care that the laws be faithfully executed” when in fact he had attempted to obstruct justice, while claiming to cooperate publicly.

3) To emphasize her arguments, Congresswoman Jordan used several rhetorical techniques.

a) She used repetition very frequently to further her points and make sure the audience would remember them.

i) A very powerful technique she used was where she would quote a line from the Federalist Papers or from one of the ratification conventions describing under what circumstances the President should be impeached.

(1) She would then describe exactly why Nixon should be impeached under those terms, and then would solemnly repeat the first quote to hit the point home.

(a) She did this four times in her speech, and each time it strengthened her argument significantly.

(b) Using such repetition helps the audience remember the reasons given for impeachment, and makes for a more memorable speech.

b) She also used very strong rhetoric to frame the argument in terms of the Constitution.

i) This makes her arguments hard to criticize, as such criticisms could be construed as questioning the Constitution, which is of course held in reverence by the American public.

ii) Similarly, her support in the form of quotes from the founding fathers made it very difficult for others to question her ideas on the intent of the impeachment provisions of the Constitution, as surely they would know best what it was meant for.

iii) Finally, she stated a hyperbole that, “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.” (Jordan, 1974)

4) We cannot know how successful Barbara Jordan’s speech to the House Judiciary Committee was in convincing the members of Congress that Nixon should have been impeached, as he resigned shortly afterwards.

a) However, her strong and well thought arguments, with support from the writings of the founding fathers, made Jordan’s speech memorable.

b) Her use of repetition strengthened the tone and the sincerity of the speech, further bolstering her arguments.

c) Finally, her ability to frame the debate in terms of the Constitution made her positions relatively unassailable.

d) Combined, this makes Jordan’s speech to the House Judiciary Committee very powerful, and considering its political relevancy, highly important even today.

Farnsworth, M. (n.d.). Retrieved February 10, 2008, from The Scandal That Destroyed President Richard Nixon: http://www.watergate.info/

Hamilton, A. (1778). The Powers of the Senate Continued. New York: New York Packet.

Jordan, B. (1974, July 25). Barbara Jordan - Statement on House Judiciary Proceedings to Impeach President Nixon. Retrieved February 24, 2008, from American Rhetoric: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordanjudiciarystatement.htm

Madison, J. (1787). Constitutional Convention. Philadelphia.

Naughton, J. M. (1974, July 26). A Committee Impeachment Vote By Sizable Bipartisan Majority Is Indicated As Debate Goes On. New York Times .

Story, J. (1833). Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Boston: Hilliard, Gray and Company.

First Speech

Comments

Caitlin Leahy: You had good knowledge of your topic and you made really good points in your speech. You talked a little too fast so I would watch work on slowing down for the next speech. Everything you said made sense but I think you should vary your emphasis more so that you can highlight important points. Great job!

Whitney Trompeter: You had really good eye contact. The speech was well researched at very well written. It was a little polished, so maybe make it more conversational and also slow down a little bit because you had plenty of time to spare. Really good speech though.

Michael McKenna: You had good eye contact and spoke at a good pace. Your background of the situation was excellent. You seemed vey knowledgeable on the subject. Next time try working on voice inflection, and emphasizing key points through your tone. Overall, good job!

Jess Mannion: Your speech was very credible, you maintained good eye-contact, and made good use of references. Try working on slowing down and being more articulate, make your speech seem more conversational. Your knowledge of the subject was good showing you put time into your speech to do the research! Overall it was a good speech!!

David Oh: You had great eye contact and your speech flowed very well. You spoke clear enough and were very confident. You knew your information well and the overall speech was very interesting. Good Job!

Laura O'Neal: Ryan, you established good credibility at the beginning of your speech and seemed professional and calm during your delivery. You also made good eye contact all around the room. My advice is to work on your tone a bit for next time- your topic was really interesting but you kind of lost me a couple times because you went a little monotone. Overall though, you did great- good job!

John Galvin: You clearly knew the topic extremely well. Also, your closer seemed very strong. But sometimes i couldn't follow you because you talked too quietly and too quickly. If you work on that your next speech can be even better.

Siama Manzoor: Ryan, you had a great analysis of the speech you were speaking about. You kept good eye contact, however you were speaking rather quickly and quietly. Other than that good job!

Enrique Ortiz: I thought your speech was filled with credible material as well as content, and that you knew your topic thoroughly. In general, the speech was constructed in a great manner, but the delivery could have been smoother. Your eye contact was great, as were your transitions, but the tone of voice made it extremely difficult for me to hear what you were saying. The speech was great, simply increase the volume of your voice, and I think you will do very well! Great Job!

Scot Brown: The best thing for you to do would be to work of clarity of voice and most of all PROJECTION! I felt like you had something good to say, but half the time really had trouble discerning what it was. Also, make sure you finish your sentences before you take pauses. If you need a pause, remember that's what periods are there for.

Outline

1) Introduction

a) The President is authorizing warrantless wiretapping for 'national security reasons.'

i) It was not President Bush, but President Nixon in the early ‘70’s.

b) I am a sophomore interested in politics and history, and have written previously on the topic.

c) On July 25th, 1974, Barbara Jordan delivered a speech to the House Judiciary Committee, in support for the impeachment of President Nixon.

i) This stemmed from the unfolding Watergate scandal.

(1) It was found that President Nixon was obstructing justice and abusing the office of the Presidency to violate the constitutional rights of citizens. (Farnsworth)

(a) This included warrantless wiretaps on citizens, and the burglary of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee and the office of Dr. Lewis Felding.

(i) The discovery of the warrantless wiretaps would eventually lead to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (Dean, 2005)

(b) Some of these activities were even funded by Nixon’s reelection campaign.

ii) At the time, the House Judiciary Committee was investigating whether or not to put forth a motion for impeachment.

(1) Congresswoman Jordan’s speech focused on the issue that it was imperative to impeach President Nixon, or else impeachment as a whole would be meaningless, and “perhaps that 18th-century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder.” (Jordan, 1974)

d) While these events happened more than thirty years ago, they are still relevant, as impeachment of the President is a part of the political landscape now, just as it was then.

i) Barbara Jordan could have been speaking as much to us as she was to the House Judiciary Committee thirty four years prior.

2) Audience

a) Directly, Jordan was speaking to the House Judiciary Committee members.

i) However, it is clear that it was intended for a much wider audience.

ii) Not just Congress, but the American people and even the world were included in the audience.

(1) By the nature of her political position, and her stance on the impeachment, Jordan’s speech is likely to have been heard by many who were interested in the proceedings.

(2) It stands today as one of the greatest speeches of the 20th century, according to American Rhetoric, and as such is still well known today.

iii) It was important for her speech to be heard by more than just the politicians in the Committee.

(1) As an impeachment is necessarily national news, and her support for the impeachment would become well known, it was imperative that her rationale be known to the nation, lest the public feel that impeachment was just about petty politics.

(a) As such the speech was targeted towards all people concerned by Watergate.

3) Exigence

a) The clear purpose of the speech was to convince the members of the House Judiciary Committee of the Constitutional necessity of putting forth the articles of impeachment against President Nixon.

i) There was significant debate over what was an impeachable offense by the Constitution. (Naughton, 1974)

ii) Jordan’s speech attempted to clear the waters muddied by political affiliation and divisiveness.

iii) Without a strong argument for impeachment, it was possible the articles of impeachment would never even be proposed.

b) A secondary purpose for her speech could be more self serving in nature.

i) As a politician, leaving a legacy might have been one of her goals.

ii) Taking a leading role in pushing for the impeachment of a President is one way to be remembered.

4) Constraints

a) However, because Jordan was a politician, she also had to be concerned about her image in the present.

i) If her speech had been filled with vitriol or blatant contempt for the President, those who disagreed with impeachment could claim that impeachment was solely politically motivated.

ii) Her speech had to be honest.

(1) Inaccuracies in the speech could be used against the case for impeachment.

(2) The evidence would be reviewed for years to come, and inaccuracies would reflect poorly on Jordan’s legacy.

(3) Furthermore, the speech had to stand the test of time, so that the impeachment of President Nixon would not be questioned in the future.

5) Conclusion

a) Despite President Nixon’s continued obstruction of justice, the impeachment proceedings continued.

i) Barbara Jordan’s speech was paramount in convincing the members of the House Judiciary Committee that impeachment was necessary, and as such, shows that not even the President can escape the law if there are those willing to defend it.

ii) President Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

Dean, J. W. (2005, December 30). George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably; . Retrieved February 10, 2008, from FindLaw: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051230.html

Farnsworth, M. (n.d.). Retrieved February 10, 2008, from The Scandal That Destroyed President Richard Nixon: http://www.watergate.info/

Jordan, B. (1974, July 25). Barbara Jordan - Statement on House Judiciary Proceedings to Impeach President Nixon. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from American Rhetoric: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordanjudiciarystatement.htm

Naughton, J. M. (1974, July 26). A Committee Impeachment Vote By Sizable Bipartisan Majority Is Indicated As Debate Goes On. New York Times .