A distinction does need to be made though, between problems that the state is unable to solve, and those that it is unwilling to solve. The latter point is pivotal; is the political establishment incapable of tackling issues due to the confines of the constitution? Or is the prevalent political culture of the US simply unwilling to identify issues such as inequality, lack of health care provision, and

the gun culture as problems that require government intervention? Analysis of recent political debates on such issues tend to suggest that there is simply not the political will to tackle these issues, which is then exacerbated by the constitution’s restraints on power meaning that super-majorities are required for meaningful reforms. However, before condemning the constitution for handicapping big government solutions, two points should be considered. The restraints on power that hinder state intervention to resolve poverty issues for example, also act as a brake on the large and politically powerful reactionary and authoritarian element of American society. Furthermore, the suspicion of big government evident in the constitution is a reflection of a dominant strain of thought in American society. On balance then, the constitution seems still seems like the best deal for the USA – sometimes frustrating in its restriction of power but reflective of a peculiarly American desire for a small state.

A contrast can be made though, with the exceptional political and social conditions of the Great Depression in the 1930s. President Roosevelt’s New Deal program was threatened by the Supreme Court who deemed it to be an unconstitutional breach of states’ rights. Roosevelt refused to abandon the program, and instead threatened to ‘pack the bench’ with new justices, a prerogative of the President, subject to the approval of the Senate. Instead of allowing the number of justices to be increased, the incumbent Supreme Court justices resigned, dispelling the threat to the program. This demonstrates that when there is a clear-cut majority in favour of major reform it can succeed in the face of entrenched interests. Roosevelt had overwhelming backing from the electorate, so in tandem with the Senate he could use their public support to change the composition of the Supreme Court.

The need for explicit and overwhelming public support to enact major reforms is clear. However, these same constitutional provisions that restrict state intervention in poverty, or restricted equal rights legislation are the same checks and balances that preserve basic liberty. Essentially, this is the debate about the balance between freedom and equality. Evidence suggests though, that the current constitutional balance favouring freedom is broadly representative of American opinion. When Americans were asked whether they favoured freedom or equality, freedom

Some topics in this essay:
Supreme Court, , Timothy McVeigh, James Madison, Strom Thurmond, South Carolina, Christian Coalition, Bill Rights, World War, political culture, Senate Instead, supreme court, equal rights, freedom equality, american society, major reforms, supreme court justices, basic liberty, equality â€, scope government, public support, aspect political culture,