3 ms·

It was a single province, which at the time had around a third of the population indeed. Their signature was not required for the constitution to enter in effe

It was a single province, which at the time had around a third of the population indeed. Their signature was not required for the constitution to enter in effect. It was desired (it still is) but since the refusal was (and still is) mostly political, it is not regarded as a major impediment. Keep in mind two-thirds is a qualified majority.

908B64B197 5y ago
> Their signature was not required for the constitution to enter in effect. That's... weird. I mean, I couldn't really imagine one of the 13 colonies not signing the declaration or constitution. > but since the refusal was (and still is) mostly political I mean, it's a political document... anything having to do with it will be political!
- jcranmer 5y ago
  > That's... weird. I mean, I couldn't really imagine one of the 13 colonies not signing the declaration or constitution. The US Constitution went into effect on ratification of 9 of 13 states. Virginia and New York were numbers 10 and 11, but ratified it before a government under the new constitution was elected. North Carolina waited about a year later to ratify it, and Rhode Island even several months after that (it ratified it only after the United States threatened to embargo them), and consequently were not part of the first government under the new constitution.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    At a time where interstate travel could take several months, That doesn't surprise me. But they did end-up all signing in a relatively short timeframe.
- retrac 5y ago
  > I couldn't really imagine one of the 13 colonies not signing the declaration or constitution. Canada never declared independence from the UK. That's probably the difference in thinking. The constitution was not revolutionary. It was a reorganization, and that reorganization was carried out according to UK law (which was equivalent to Canadian law as a UK colony) at the time. The law did not require the consent of the provinces to amend the constitution at that time. In fact, the law allowed the UK parliament to simply rewrite Canada's constitution unilaterally. So they did, upon the request of the Canadian federal government after years of consultations in Canada to propose the amendments the UK rubber-stamped, when they renounced all further claim to that in 1982. If you want an analogy, some US states rejected the prohibition amendment, but they were bound by it anyway. Established constitutional law allowed it to be imposed on those states.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    > If you want an analogy, some US states rejected the prohibition amendment, but they were bound by it anyway. Established constitutional law allowed it to be imposed on those states. Except it was a constitutional amendment. And the process to create such an amendment is described... in the Constitution itself, which, naturally, every state signed.
    - retrac 5y ago
      Yes. Exactly the same was true in 1982 in Canada. The UK Parliament commissioned a board in 1867 of elected representatives from the regions of what now compromise eastern and central Canada. They drafted a constitution. Quebec was involved and signed off on the Constitution Act 1867. That constitution was passed into law by the UK Parliament. Per the established constitutional law operating in Canada in the 1980s, following the convention of the previous centuries, the government petitioned the UK government to amend the constitution yet again, this time moving the process of amendment to the Canadian legislatures and fully severing the connection. Constitutional rule in Canada begins when the British first appear and have jurisdiction, as far back as the 1600s in the eastern parts of the country. It was never interrupted. The Crown has always reigned. 18th century treaties and proclamations in UK law are an inherited part of our unwritten constitutional body. It was simply a different historical course from the USA, but not fundamentally less democratic. IMO. (Although I risk sounding like a mad Canadian nationalist at this point, I would note that under the modern constitutional system, Quebec could just exit the confederation. That is not a right of American states.)
- pessimizer 5y ago
  The word "political" has changed meaning recently to exclusively refer to discussion of minority rights and issues. If you asked (Americans at least) with no context, whether people wanted politics out of government, probably 50% would say yes.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    That’s wild. “What the government does” is the definition of politics.
- ameixaseca 5y ago
  A number of US states did not ratify some constitutional amendments and they still entered in effect. Minimum requirement is two-thirds of the states not unanimity. I meant "political" in the sense of "it's a gesture designed to cause some political effect or to be used in the future for political negotiations" - maybe not the best word but couldn't think of a better one when writing that.

908B64B197 5y ago

> Their signature was not required for the constitution to enter in effect. That's... weird. I mean, I couldn't really imagine one of the 13 colonies not signing the declaration or constitution. > but since the refusal was (and still is) mostly political I mean, it's a political document... anything having to do with it will be political!

jcranmer 5y ago
> That's... weird. I mean, I couldn't really imagine one of the 13 colonies not signing the declaration or constitution. The US Constitution went into effect on ratification of 9 of 13 states. Virginia and New York were numbers 10 and 11, but ratified it before a government under the new constitution was elected. North Carolina waited about a year later to ratify it, and Rhode Island even several months after that (it ratified it only after the United States threatened to embargo them), and consequently were not part of the first government under the new constitution.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  At a time where interstate travel could take several months, That doesn't surprise me. But they did end-up all signing in a relatively short timeframe.
retrac 5y ago
> I couldn't really imagine one of the 13 colonies not signing the declaration or constitution. Canada never declared independence from the UK. That's probably the difference in thinking. The constitution was not revolutionary. It was a reorganization, and that reorganization was carried out according to UK law (which was equivalent to Canadian law as a UK colony) at the time. The law did not require the consent of the provinces to amend the constitution at that time. In fact, the law allowed the UK parliament to simply rewrite Canada's constitution unilaterally. So they did, upon the request of the Canadian federal government after years of consultations in Canada to propose the amendments the UK rubber-stamped, when they renounced all further claim to that in 1982. If you want an analogy, some US states rejected the prohibition amendment, but they were bound by it anyway. Established constitutional law allowed it to be imposed on those states.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > If you want an analogy, some US states rejected the prohibition amendment, but they were bound by it anyway. Established constitutional law allowed it to be imposed on those states. Except it was a constitutional amendment. And the process to create such an amendment is described... in the Constitution itself, which, naturally, every state signed.
  - retrac 5y ago
    Yes. Exactly the same was true in 1982 in Canada. The UK Parliament commissioned a board in 1867 of elected representatives from the regions of what now compromise eastern and central Canada. They drafted a constitution. Quebec was involved and signed off on the Constitution Act 1867. That constitution was passed into law by the UK Parliament. Per the established constitutional law operating in Canada in the 1980s, following the convention of the previous centuries, the government petitioned the UK government to amend the constitution yet again, this time moving the process of amendment to the Canadian legislatures and fully severing the connection. Constitutional rule in Canada begins when the British first appear and have jurisdiction, as far back as the 1600s in the eastern parts of the country. It was never interrupted. The Crown has always reigned. 18th century treaties and proclamations in UK law are an inherited part of our unwritten constitutional body. It was simply a different historical course from the USA, but not fundamentally less democratic. IMO. (Although I risk sounding like a mad Canadian nationalist at this point, I would note that under the modern constitutional system, Quebec could just exit the confederation. That is not a right of American states.)
pessimizer 5y ago
The word "political" has changed meaning recently to exclusively refer to discussion of minority rights and issues. If you asked (Americans at least) with no context, whether people wanted politics out of government, probably 50% would say yes.
- kergonath 5y ago
  That’s wild. “What the government does” is the definition of politics.
ameixaseca 5y ago
A number of US states did not ratify some constitutional amendments and they still entered in effect. Minimum requirement is two-thirds of the states not unanimity. I meant "political" in the sense of "it's a gesture designed to cause some political effect or to be used in the future for political negotiations" - maybe not the best word but couldn't think of a better one when writing that.