Lesson 1.5 · Unit 1 · CA HSS 10.1.3
The influence of the US Constitution on later political systems
The United States Constitution is the oldest written national constitution still in force, and it became a template that dozens of later states borrowed from. Tracing what was copied, what was altered and what was quietly dropped says a great deal about what the document actually does.
- A written constitution is itself the first export. Before 1787 most states had no single document defining the government's powers.
- Separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches was widely copied, though the balance between them varies enormously.
- Federalism was the genuine innovation: a division of sovereignty between national and state governments, each supreme in its own sphere.
- A bill of rights attached to the constitution, rather than granted by statute, became standard practice in later constitutions.
- Judicial review, the power of courts to strike down laws, was not in the text and developed through practice. It is now among the most widely copied features.
- The amendment procedure was influential in principle: a constitution should be changeable, but by a harder process than ordinary legislation.
- The presidential system traveled badly. A directly elected executive independent of the legislature has produced deadlock and worse in several states that adopted it, and most European democracies chose parliamentary systems instead.
Where students lose marks: listing features that were copied without asking whether they worked. The interesting cases are the ones where a borrowed structure produced a different result, because that shows the structure was depending on something that was not written down.
The source. The Constitution of the United States, 1787, Article VI and Article V. Public domain as a work of the United States government.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States.
Step one: identify what the supremacy clause solves. A federal system has two governments with authority over the same territory and people, so conflicts are inevitable. Without a rule of priority, every dispute becomes a trial of strength.
Step two: read the mechanism precisely. The clause does not instruct states to comply. It instructs "the Judges in every State", who are state officials, to treat federal law as supreme regardless of their own state's constitution. The rule is enforced inside each state's own court system by its own judges.
That is an elegant solution: it requires no federal enforcement apparatus, because the state's judiciary does the work. Federal systems that copied federalism without this feature have generally had far more trouble.
Step three: notice the qualifier that constrains it. "Made in Pursuance thereof." A federal law is supreme only if it is constitutional, which implies that something must determine whether it is. The clause presupposes judicial review without establishing it, which is why the power developed by practice rather than by text.
Step four: analyze Article V's design goal. Two thresholds, two thirds to propose and three fourths to ratify, both far above a simple majority. The design makes the constitution changeable in principle and difficult in practice.
Step five: state the trade the design makes. A constitution easy to amend offers weak protection, since any majority can remove a right. One impossible to amend becomes unworkable and is eventually discarded. Article V chooses strong protection and accepts that necessary changes may be blocked by a determined minority.
The evidence on the choice is mixed and worth stating. Twenty-seven amendments in over two centuries indicates real difficulty, and the Reconstruction amendments show that major change is possible under extraordinary conditions.
Step six: examine what traveled well. Written constitutions, entrenched bills of rights, separation of powers and judicial review are now close to universal among constitutional democracies, and all four are traceable to this document or its early practice.
Step seven: examine what traveled badly, which is more instructive. The presidential system, with a directly elected executive who cannot be removed by the legislature and does not depend on its confidence, has a poor record in states that adopted it. Where president and legislature are controlled by different parties, there is no constitutional way to break a deadlock, and the historical pattern in several countries has been resolution by force.
Step eight: draw the general lesson. A borrowed structure carries none of the conditions that made it work at home: settled party norms, an independent judiciary with real authority, and a habit of accepting electoral defeat. When a structure produces different results in a new setting, the explanation is usually that it was relying on something nobody wrote down.
Questions 1 to 5 are recall. Questions 6 to 10 ask for reasoning.
- What was the first exported feature of the US Constitution?
Show the full solution
The idea of a single written document defining the government's powers
- What is federalism?
Show the full solution
A division of sovereignty between national and state governments, each supreme in its own sphere
- Is judicial review in the constitutional text?
Show the full solution
No, it developed through practice
- What are the two thresholds in Article V?
Show the full solution
Two thirds of both Houses to propose, three fourths of the states to ratify
- Which exported feature has the worst record abroad?
Show the full solution
The presidential system
- Explain why the supremacy clause addresses state judges rather than states.
Show the full solution
Because it makes the rule self-enforcing inside each state. Instructing states to comply would require a federal apparatus to compel them when they did not, whereas binding the judges in every state means the state's own courts apply federal law against their own state's constitution as a matter of routine. Federal systems that copied the division of sovereignty without a comparable mechanism have generally had far more trouble with conflicts between levels. It makes the rule self-enforcing through each state's own courts
- What does the phrase "made in Pursuance thereof" presuppose?
Show the full solution
That federal law is supreme only when it is constitutional, which implies some body must decide whether a given law qualifies. The clause therefore assumes judicial review without creating it, which is why the power had to develop through practice rather than being exercised from the text. It is a good example of a document depending on an institution it does not establish, and of how much constitutional practice is not written down. That someone must judge constitutionality, implying judicial review without creating it
- What trade does Article V make, and what is the evidence on it?
Show the full solution
It trades ease of change for strength of protection. A constitution amendable by simple majority protects nothing, since any majority could remove a right; one that cannot be amended becomes unworkable and is eventually discarded. Article V chooses strong protection and accepts that needed changes can be blocked by a determined minority. The evidence is mixed: twenty-seven amendments in over two centuries shows genuine difficulty, while the Reconstruction amendments show major change is possible under extraordinary conditions. Strong protection at the cost of blocked change; the record supports both halves
- Why has the presidential system traveled badly?
Show the full solution
Because it creates two separately elected authorities with competing claims to represent the people and no constitutional way to resolve a deadlock between them. When president and legislature are held by different parties and neither will yield, a parliamentary system can call an election while a presidential one simply stalls. In several states that adopted the structure the historical pattern has been that deadlock is resolved by force rather than by procedure. Two rival mandates with no mechanism to break deadlock
- What general lesson follows when a borrowed structure produces different results?
Show the full solution
That the structure was relying on conditions nobody wrote into it. Settled party norms, an independent judiciary with real authority, and an established habit of accepting electoral defeat all support a constitution without appearing in its text, and none of them transfers with the document. When copying produces a different outcome, the productive question is which unwritten condition was missing, and that question applies well beyond constitutions. It was depending on unwritten conditions that did not travel with the text