How did religious revival and neo-orthodoxy fit into the culture of the 1950s

Even if those network families did not depict accurately the virtues of white, middle-class, suburban families (who never seemed to go to church), the Christianity of the 1950’s that blessed those families is not one that Eberstadt should use to support her case. For Protestants it was a time of neo-orthodoxy lite—more Niebuhr than Barth—when the American way of life (freedom and democracy)—not faith and repentance or word and sacrament—was synonymous with Protestantism. The situation among Roman Catholics was better but not by much. As Roman Catholics (in the United States at least) left behind their ghettos for suburban parishes, they assimilated American norms in ways that prepared the way for Vatican II’s engagement with the modern world, a posture that significantly undercut rationales for becoming a priest, nun, or monk. Of course, the families of the 1950’s were as responsible for increasing membership in conservative as in liberal churches. But in the case of liberal Christian families, domestic ties could not withstand the baby-boomers loss of faith.

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