The aristocracy was not essentially states. Your missing the central innovation, one is based on population and one is based on land area division with their own non-uniform governments. Nevermind the structure and powers of the executive branch.
Nothing happens in a vacuum, but if you discount everything that had roots in something before, then there is no such thing as innovation in any human endeavor.
You're saying that the 'landed gentry' are not effectively 'land area divisions'? The aristocracy essentially performed the level of government that the states do these days. They still exist in the British parliament (house of commons vs house of lords - the latter is literally staffed by aristocracy).
Counties, duchies, principalities - these were all forms of states. They just happened to be controlled by the aristocracy rather than an elected representative. So if one chamber is filled with these 'controllers of land', it's very much the same as being filled with 'states'.
but if you discount everything that had roots in something before
"The independence of the US and its political system was a great moment in history" doesn't sound like I'm discounting it much.
The irony in your comment is that in order for me 'not to discount' the efforts put into the US revolution (which I didn't actually do), you're more than happy to discount efforts performed by earlier actors.
"controlled by the aristocracy rather than an elected representative"
The House of Lords and the US Senate are pretty different. The states in the US have their own constitutions and elections. The different between unelected and elected is large.
Nothing happens in a vacuum, but if you discount everything that had roots in something before, then there is no such thing as innovation in any human endeavor.