And blame the U.S. Constitution for that! YES, the venerated document that defines the structure of the government and the separation of powers. It has come to betray the intention of the Founders to divide up power so that no one branch can dictate to the rest. Sounds like a great idea until you invent large financial and business institutions whose wealth rivals that of whole nations. This is a change that the Founders could not have anticipated, or judging by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, was intentional, see, New York had the fix in even back in 1789. Business and Finance are the tools of the aristocracy that assured Hamilton.
The problem is that Congress, particularly the House, has power of the purse strings, and even if it gives tacit power to establish executive departments, it can underfund them at will, especially if the business interests who have gotten more and more access to members of Congress don't want enforcement funded. The oldest trick in the book is for Congress to pass a law that enacts a popular reform and to later defund it because the power brokers in the duopoly don't want it.
Of course passing amendments to the U.S. Constitution is a slow and drawn-out process. One can see the possibility that rapid change or a huge crisis; some have been warning that a failure to repair the systemic problems in banking, finance, and investment, that contributed to the Crash of 2008 have not been fixed and might lead to another meltdown and soon, will outstrip the process and lead to even more radical change in the nation than Constitutional processes will allow. The worst case is a total national disruption leading to a governmental crisis or oven a Civil War. The Congress would have to act very differently in the face of such a crisis than it has over the past 30-40 years. this has happened before, rescuing the Union several times. Another possibility is that technical and demographic change will lead to the Union becoming irrevelent and Constitutional reform taking the shape of several sections of the country separating from the rest.
First. the urban centers of the country are under represented by any current apportionment that recognizes States Rights and the current bicameral legislature. This divide is widening and is reflected in political debates about Gun Control and the power of other rural-centered issues from social issues to energy priorities. One thing that may tip the balance is energy independence of the urban coasts by the coming on-line of non-carbon based fuels, nuclear fusion, and alternative nuclear fuels like Thorium. Once free of the Carbon Lobby in the Conservative central states, and able to desalinate water cheaply from the oceans, the populations on the two coasts will see the center of the nation as a millstone and see the Constitution as the tool of keeping the rural states in power and they will demand succession.
This breakup does not have to take the form of the Civil War of 1861. The coasts do not need the center to be viable economically or to threive, especially the West Coast. Right now it is energy and water that limits what the economy of the Western U.S. can do, and that could change overnight if nuclear fusion is proven to be viable. The economic clout of the Gulf Coast and Midwest will simply evaporate or become much less important. They may ask to separate from the rest to protect their conservative social values, and we on the costs will say "Be Our Guest!", no Civil War results.
Desalination of seawater made affordable by nuclear fusion would result in one huge risk, the disruption of ocean circulation by the creation of dense brine especially if done in the eastern sides of ocean basins where the introduction of brine would disrupt nutrient-rich upwelling. We may have to farm the salty brine on the land to dispose of it and also to create high albeido regions to cool the overheated atmosphere caused by burning of carbon fuels. Maybe it would be just that either the Gulf Coast has to receive the salt or leave the Union.