In response to a post by John McGinnis about Scotland, Michael Greve writes some thought-provoking comments.

John writes: “[C]onstitutional federalism likely has a greater future in Europe than in the United States where, with a few exceptions like Texas, geographical areas increasingly do not map onto very distinctive cultures.” Really? The truth is the reverse. “[C]onstitutional structures are matters not only of the intellect but also of the heart,” John says. Darn right. And if you want constitutional federalism, people’s hearts have to run to the Constitution, not some parochial attachments. Once you map statehood onto culture, constitutionalism becomes a bloodless abstraction. That’s why in our entire constitutional debate there’s a lot a burble about large versus small states but never a word about protecting local folkways or customs in Connecticut or Georgia; why the most brutal assault on the Constitution was preceded by a lot of romantic claptrap about a distinctive Southern “culture”; why places like Oklahoma and Alaska could not become states until they were no longer identifiable by culture, language etc; and why Puerto Rico and for that matter Indian reservations cannot ever become states. And that’s why constitutional federalism is (still) a reality here and a bureaucratic nightmare and an international law illusion over there.

McGinnis then replies.