With respect to McCarthy, I continue to believe that the President of the United States cannot afford to name names in opposing procedures, practices and methods in our government. This applies with
special force when the individual concerned enjoys the immunity of a United States Senator. This
particular individual wants, above all else, publicity. Nothing would probably please him more than to
get the publicity that would be
generated by public repudiation by the President...
It is a sorry mess; at times one feels almost like hanging his head in shame when he reads some of the
unreasoned, vicious outbursts of demagoguery that appear in our public prints. But whether a
Presidential "crack down" would better, or would actually worsen, the situation, is a moot question.

According to this letter, why doesn’t Eisenhower speak out against McCarthy?

Do you think that the President was right? Or should he have denounced McCarthy and his tactics? Why or why not?

Explanation:

consequences of his acts, the Senator had not calculated what would happen if ... of us who are your loyal friends, it is a fallacy to assume that McCarthy will kill ... afford to name names in opposing procedures, practices and methods in our ... This applies with special force when the individual concerned enjoys the immunity ...

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is