Comment by smacktoward | Hacker News Reader

Comment by smacktoward | Hacker News Reader

> Rarely during the late 1770s and 1780s was the Declaration publicly read or celebrated. Instead, most Americans celebrated their state constitutions and the promise of liberty contained within them. Or they celebrated their local declarations from 1776. Only during the 1790s was the Declaration revived...

It seems relevant here that the late 1770s and 1780s was also the same period when the United States was governed under the Articles of Confederation, rather than the Constitution we have today (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_Period).

The Articles of Confederation established a much weaker central government than the later Constitution would. So it would make sense, in a regime where the several states were still regarded as near-sovereign entities, that people would look to the founding documents of their state as the guarantors of their liberty. And it also makes sense that, when the weak central government proved unable to meet the challenges of the time and people started thinking about replacing it with a stronger one, new attention would be drawn to documents like the Declaration that spoke from a national perspective.

From the article "Rarely during the late 1770s and 1780s was the Declaration publicly read or celebrated. Instead, most Americans celebrated their state constitutions and the promise of liberty contained within them. Or they celebrated their local declarations from 1776."

Though it doesn't say when those state constitutions were enacted, it sounds like the states were already separate things. That would explain the lack of interest in the declaration of independence at the time.

"But Wilson thought its significance lay elsewhere: in confirming that the United States was born a nation rather than a series of independent states."

If there were state constitutions prior to that, I'd say who cares what Wilson thought - facts are facts. Besides, how can you have someone sign from every state if those states are not already meaningful entities? I think a better stance is to say the nation was formed over a period of time, based on a set of principles and ideas (most importantly "we are separate from the old world"). Documents only served to formalize what was happening and agree on how to settle some differences.

> Besides, how can you have someone sign from every state if those states are not already meaningful entities?

The states were meaningful entities as distinct colonies before they declared independence, regardless of the manner in which that independence was declared.

Indeed, Massachusetts has the oldest constitution still in force in North America (older than the US federal constitution). People mostly felt loyalty to their own state and that was one reason for opposition to the v2 national constitution, even when it was clear the v1 articles were inadequate.

Even so, they are united States (as opposed to, say, Australia where the so-called "states" are for all intents and purposes merely administrative subdivisions of the continent, and could be remade by passing a law in the federal parliament)

Source: Massachusetts high school education in a school 150 years older than the MA constitution.

> Even so, they are united States

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure that argument was resolved in 1865.

Mostly only the "united" part, and amendment 10 still says that stuff not in the constitution (e.g. amendment 13 or 16) ain't in the federal purview. Hence weird contortions like stretching the interstate commerce clause, tying drinking age to highways funding, and the like.

And just look at the presidents who got the job without winning the vote.

I think things would have been better if things had ended up less federal as a result of 1865, but things ended up the way they are now.

>Even so, they are united States (as opposed to, say, Australia where the so-called "states" are for all intents and purposes merely administrative subdivisions of the continent, and could be remade by passing a law in the federal parliament)

I don't think this is accurate. Prior to federation there were no Australian states, there were 6 independent colonies.

The status of the states are part of the Australian Constitution to make changes (such as creating a new state) would require amending the constitution and thus a referendum.

The Australian States have quite a bit of power its one of the "challenges" we have here because of the way our constitution is written in order for a referendum to pass it requires a double majority you need an overall majority as well as a majority in a majority of states (i.e 4 out of 6 states must also have majority support) this is one of the reasons constitutional amendments are so difficult and rarely pass here.

Similar thing with our senate (Upper house) each state has equal representation in the senate so both Tasmania and New South Wales have 12 Senators despite much smaller population in Tas. This is in contrast to House of Representatives (our lower house) is not equal (there are 5 seats in Tasmania vs 47 in NSW) this has a lot of implications in our political process.

As far as people not feeling loyalty to their state that's mostly true but there is still a lot of friendly (or not so friendly rivalry) especially in sporting events.

I actually learned this when visiting Parliament House last year (though it was part of an off-the-tour side discussion +). Having lived in both countries I think the independence of the US states is radically and fundamentally stronger than that of the Australian states, especially since (and because) income tax was federalised 75 years ago.

The only place I know that even comes close to the US independence of the states is Germany.

+ I was visiting a friend who works there; later went out to dinner with him and a colleague who is a constitutional lawyer and who was quite familiar with the American system as well.

> I actually learned this when visiting Parliament House last year (though it was part of an off-the-tour side discussion). Having lived in both countries I think the independence of the US states is radically and fundamentally stronger than that of the Australian states, especially since (and because) income tax was federalised 75 years ago.

It's a mixture of factors, but vertical fiscal imbalance enabled by the First Uniform Tax Case is certainly part of it. As I'm sure you're aware Australians generally have fewer objections to centralised government.

Culturally Australia has historically been significantly more homogeneous across the different states than the US, even our accents are more similar between different states.

> The only place I know that even comes close to the US independence of the states is Germany.

Switzerland?

I know nothing about US system so I can't really compare the two. The only reason I know anything about our own constitution is I had to do a school project on Sir Henry Parkes way back in high school.

Personally I kind of have opposite view about the states I do think there needs to be a trade off between federal and state power our current system is flawed but probably strikes a good balance. I'm sympathetic to fact that someone living in say Regional QLD has different needs to Melbourne or Sydney and I don't want a system where power is consolidated in the big population centers and no one else's vote really matters but at the same time I'd like voting power to be more proportional as it stands someones vote in Tasmania holds a lot more weight federally then voters from many of the other states due to equal (rather than proportional representation) of the states.

> The only place I know that even comes close to the US independence of the states is Germany.

Canada has pretty strong provinces as well. The Swiss cantons are also more powerful than the central government. I imagine Bosnia and Belgium are also similar, but that's more "the country is made up of two statelets who hate each other's guts" than a true federalist perspective.

Interestingly Western Australia is within their rights (granted under the constitution) to succeed from the federation.

Even so, they are united States (as opposed to, say, Australia where the so-called "states" are for all intents and purposes merely administrative subdivisions of the continent, and could be remade by passing a law in the federal parliament)

This isn't really true. The fundamental setup of the Constitution of Australia is that the separate States retain their existing power to make laws and enforce laws on essentially any matter (with some very specific carve-outs, like the states may not coin money, raise armed forces or try to impose a tax on the Federal government). The Federal Parliament is granted the power to make laws only with respect to an enumerated set of heads of power.

This is, for example, why the Federal Government was able to overrule voluntary euthanasia legislation in both the Territories, but cannot in the case of the State of Victoria.

The vertical fiscal imbalance mentioned elsewhere certainly is an issue, where the State Governments are responsible for most service delivery but the practical revenue-raising ability of the Federal Government is significantly greater. This results in the Federal Government using 'tied grants' to influence State policy, but it is my understanding that a similar thing happens in the US as well (for example in the case of raising the drinking age to 21).

In terms of remaking the States, the Constitution specifically disallows altering the limits of a State without the consent of that State's Parliament and passing a referendum of that State's voters.

The states were definitely sovereign entities before the nation was created. (Some would say the nation was foisted upon the states through a long period of subterfuge.) Maryland received its charter from the English king in 1632, almost 150 years before the revolution.

It was like the EU.

In the sense of being somewhat federalised, maybe, but

> had little authority, and could not accomplish anything independent of the states. It had no chief executive, and no court system. Congress lacked the power to levy taxes, regulate foreign or interstate commerce, or effectively negotiate with foreign powers.

sounds nothing like the EU!

Interestingly the EU also doesn't levy taxes. Unlike the US under the Articles of Confederation though, EU member states actually value central government, and so they do actually pay to run it (all EU governments pay in, but EU schemes have the effect that the poorer states get back more than they paid in various forms). That Congress wasn't able to get anything done because in practice the States didn't allow it to get anything done. A lot of the same thinking that's today popular on the US West Coast brought down that government.

"Oh, I'd definitely _voluntarily_ pay for a central government, I just don't want mandatory taxes". "Oh did I say I'd definitely pay? I'm short right now, hit me up next month." "Actually I decided I don't want to contribute to anything I'm not totally in favour of, I need veto over all decisions or else I won't be paying". "Huh, funny, why did the government fail?"

And that's why the modern US government has tax raising powers. Just as the UK can rightly say it tried not having kings, hated it, so got a new king but now very clearly at the whim of the people; the US can say it has tried not having mandatory taxation and that didn't work so yes it now has taxes (with or without representation) and that won't be changing.

I'm not an American, how does this compare to current US West Coast?

The Californian ideology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology

I grew up in Florida (Rep. Joe Scarborough's district, back when he was a rabid conservative and a leader in the Republican revolution) and Alabama, worked as an intern at a neoconservative K Street think tank in the late 1990s/early 2000s, and went to law school in Virginia in the late 2000s. I've lived and worked on and off in the Bay Area for nearly 15 of the last 20 years, and have plenty of family in Southern California (including a sister and cousin who are active politically, one progressive the other more a Californian conservative), so understand the vibe down there.

The sentiments of the techno-utopians on the west coast and the settlers before them shouldn't be equivocated to the anti-civic sentiments of Southern conservatism and the national conservative movement that emerged principally from the Bible belt and Sunbelt states in the 1990s.

Keep making that mistake and we'll have decades more of civic and political nihilism. Even the most starry-eyed Silicon Valley billionaires dreaming about basic incomes and robo-basilisks still seek to engage with government and the state. Gingrich, perhaps more than any other politician (he did lead the Republican Revolution, after all), is a walking incarnation of the modern Republican ideology, and he's an avowed nihilist when it comes to government.

Similar all-or-nothing, bitter attitudes are creeping into the political left and it will likewise lead to political decay. It's not healthy. People should feel to disagree with and criticize Benihoff, Mayer, Musk, Zuckerberg, etc; but step back and compare them to people like Carla Fioroni. Who's politics should you really be afraid of?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com