NateNate60

I'm not even talking about the original screenshot any more. I went off on a tangent with some historical discussion that I hoped would be interesting but apparently people get offended when they're told something in America happens to be older than something in their country. And no, I will not leave this hill just because you want to occupy it instead.

Of course I'm not going to tell you that, because I'm not saying the original commenter in the screenshot is right. You seemed to have missed that too.

My native language is Cantonese. Take that what you will.

You might be right on that count although I hope you aren't. I think we'll have to see what happens in the next three years before saying for sure though.

A country doesn't need a constitution. But a state without a constitution doesn't exist. A constitution is just a set of rules that explains how state power is exercised. Sometimes, it goes something like "the king decides everything". Sometimes, it goes "Parliament can make any law except one that a future parliament cannot unmake". Sometimes, it goes "We, the people... [+4 pages of text]". All of these are constitutions, even if they aren't documents calling themselves "The Constitution™"

Yes

I will admit, that originally read "the Nazis destroyed the Third French Republic" before I changed it hastily.

I think this (or similar) scenarios come up a lot in other histories as well, though. I think an analogous point would be the enactment of "An Act Declaring England to be a Commonwealth" by the English Parliament and the preceding trial and execution of Charles I. Both were retroactively deemed illegal by the restored monarchy (obviously) since the former lacked royal asset on account of the latter, which was deemed regicide. But it still happened and I think it is indisputable that the old Kingdom of England indisputably ended when the English Parliament declared a republic, despite the monarchy's later restoration. A state can end not just by being dissolved according to its own rules, but since a state only exists in the minds of the people and is not a tangible object, it can also cease to exist when people just stop paying attention to its laws.

People can declare anything they like but it doesn't change the reality of history. And I know this is splitting hairs at this point and the argument is starting to lose its meaning. But people have also tried re-declaring the Roman Republic twice as well.

And speaking of which, there are also questions like whether the Roman Empire was the same state as the Roman Republic (arguably yes but also arguably no), and whether the Byzantine Empire was the same state as the Roman Republic (ditto). And these are questions I am wholly unqualified to answer with any meaningful depth.

Nobody denies that the USA is a "child of Europe[an colonisers]". San Marino I concede has institutions which have been longer than those of the USA. But the current iteration of the Swiss Confederation is not (and I refer to the state institutions, not the concept of Switzerland). The Old Swiss Confederacy was destroyed by Napoleon when he invaded and replaced by a so-called "sister republic" which governed Switzerland until his he got rid of it a few years later. What exists today is only as old as the Congress of Vienna, perhaps a little older than that if you consider the time that Diet spent arguing over the constitution.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that the Third Republic's constitution was abrogated by the Constitutional Law of 1940 which gave all powers of the state to Philippe Pétain. Pétain then established the Vichy regime as a collaborationist government and decided against writing a new constitution for his regime, and that lasted until the German occupation forces decided to just take over the rest of France and rule it directly.

Constitutions don't make a country. People do.

I agree completely with this which is why I said basically the same thing in my comment. I'm saying that while 250 years old for a country is not very old, going 250 years without suffering some kind of complete collapse in state institutions is pretty long.

Did you even read the comment? I said that the US's government institutions are quite old, but the country is young. Yes, there has been a country named "Poland" around for much longer. But Poland has also governed by a succession of states, most not lasting very long (which as you probably know, is related to the actions of the other country you mention). I'm not saying that the idea of the US as a country is old, I'm saying its government institutions are older than usual.