I (an American) was having a discussion with some European friends recently, and we had a bit of a disconnect. I was trying to convince them that, contrary to their perceptions (they are fooled by the architecture) the United States is very old, and their countries -- France, in particular, are very young. We in the US have the oldest constitutional democracy in the world, or possibly the second oldest if you misinterpret what the British Parliament was in the 18th Century. We are stuck with a government created by a bunch of agrarian colonists in the 1700s, and most of Europe has governments created in the 20th Century, created with knowledge of the labor movement, high capitalism, and totalitarian movements. And also, they've been able to observe the disasters caused by our pidgin compromise of a political system.

Compared to you guys (Swiss Federal Constitution: ratified 1999) we aren't even driving horse and buggies. We're on some wobbly farmer's cart pulled by a mule.

That's exactly what I meant. The thing about being the first constitutional democracy - well, I guess it depends on how you look at it. By modern definitions yes, but what exactly is a democracy and what is a constitution? The confederation that came before the Swiss republic had their charter since 1291, and its cantons, being about as sovereign as a state, had constitutions long before the republic was formed. It was also a democracy, as in a largish percentage of male population had the right to vote, as opposed to all the monarchic rules in the rest of Europe. Before that you have of course Ancient Greece that probably had some sort of constitution as well[1].

The thing is - as you say - it's important to not be dogmatic about these sort of things - and dogmatism often seems to me part of the American way unfortunately. While the latest amendment to the US constitution apparently has been passed in 1992[2], the constitution has never been completely revised. Noone seems to even propose such a thing, since the 'founding fathers' obviously haven known best. Many shortcomings, like the election system and the lack of direct democracy, seem to go back to the limitations of information travel and organization back in the late 18th century. Others, like the president's veto power, are stranger, since the idea of a clear separation of powers go back to well before the founding of the USA[3] - it's hard for me to explain how George Washington was able to get this through, but it seems obvious from a European, French Republic influenced standpoint that it doesn't belong there. And the ability of the speaker of the house to block a vote? Come on, that's a systemic bug that should be squished with the reaction time of a Microsoft hotfix.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Athenians

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers

Just to clarify, I'm not claiming the US is the first constitutional democracy, just the oldest still standing. And agree with you about all the oddities. As far as presidential veto power, the US Constitution predates the first French Republic, so it couldn't have been influence by it. It's my understanding that the presidential veto was a concession to the monarchists who were afraid of the popular will.

Yeah, but he is the President...

Apparently it's also no problem if it's the speaker of the house, if I understand recent news from this kafkaeske play.

I thought the parent was referring to a filibuster.