Transcript

A threads post saying “There has never been another nation ever that has existed much beyond 250 years. Not a single one. America’s 250th year is 2025. The next 4 years are gonna be pretty interesting considering everything that’s already been said.” It has a reply saying “My local pub is older than your country”.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
25 points

They’re not being precise with their language, but their point is largely true. What they really mean is that the US has the oldest still active Constitution in the world. The UK has existed in a continuous government for far longer, but they don’t have a written Constitution like the US does.

Yeah, it’s easy to shit on Americans about being ignorant of history. But this person’s point is largely true. The US has had the same constitution in effect for nearly 250 years. It is the oldest written constitution on Earth still in effect. Most nations have revolutions or complete rewrites of their foundational legal documents long before they reach this point.

And this is also why the US has such political instability right now. We have a Constitution that was written for the needs of 250 years ago. It was formed from a series of compromises that made sense in the politics of 250 years ago. At this point, we really should scrap it entirely and start from scratch. Having the world’s oldest Constitution really isn’t something worth bragging over; it just means you’re running obsolete software.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

What they really mean is that the US has the oldest still active Constitution in the world. The UK has existed in a continuous government for far longer, but they don’t have a written Constitution like the US does.

Even if that is what they meant, and even if the UK doesn’t count for whatever reason, this would still be incorrect. The constitution of San Marino dates from 1600.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Yeah, but does San Marino have a population of more than seven?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Yes, and irrelevant.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

I’m all for giving people the benefit of doubt, but no. They don’t “really mean” that, otherwise they would have written “constitution” somewhere, and not wrote “has had” when they mean “currently active”.

It’s possible they misremembered someone who had a point, true, but they do not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

The problem is they’re mixing up concepts of constitutional government, continuity in government, nationalism vs dynastic control, and the idea of the “natural lifespan” of democracies.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The UK dates back to 1801, when the parliaments of Scotland and Ireland were abolished and the UK Parliament established.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Does a constitution define what a nation is?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

In the case of the US, yes. The US started out as 13 independent countries. It was only the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution that defined the US as a country. Disband the US constitution tomorrow, and the US becomes 50 independent countries.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

In the case of the US, yes.

Even then, not really.

We celebrate July 4, 1776, the creation of our national identity independent from England, not June 21, 1788, when our constitution took effect.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

And this is not even true as there have been change. Black people where a quarter of a person at one point. Women couldn’t vote. So to say the US has had the same law for 250 years is also bullshit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Black people where a quarter of a person at one point.

It’s worse than that. The fraction you’re referring to is 1/5 and they weren’t considered people at all, they were slaves. Slaves were not considered people in terms of rights, but the number of congressmen (and also EC electors) a state had added the slave population divided by five.

So slave states had more power in congress and more voting power to determine who would be president proportional to how many slaves they had. More slaves = more “democratic” power for the slave owners.

Slaves had no rights, but slave owners had more power from that evil 1/5 rule.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

It’s 3/5. It was literally called the 3/5 compromise. Please history

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I just want to make sure I’m hearing you right on this… 1/5? Where is that number coming from?

permalink
report
parent
reply

Community stats

  • 4.3K

    Monthly active users

  • 109

    Posts

  • 4K

    Comments