>>Actually, it's the other way around. The states and people grant rights to the Federal government.
>
>Tamar;
>
>I do not think reality will agree with that. It is implied that the people grant rights to the Federal government but in practice it is not always true. The Federal government controls many elements of government that states must follow. I am taking this from a practical viewpoint and not an academic or textbook approach. I could give many examples but just think for a moment of the South during the 1950’s and 1960’s. Did the Federal government impose itself upon states and the people of those states to allow Civil Rights Laws to be carried out? What rights did the states and its citizens have? Who was right? In one case I am referring to Governor George Wallace. The question may be was the Governors decision his own, or the will of the people. Why did the Federal government prevail?
>

I was talking about the way our country is structured by the Constitution. The ongoing question is, of course, which rights have we granted to the Federal government and which not. In the case of Civil Rights, most of the law and court decisions came out of the clause that guaranteed everyone "equal protection under the law."

Tamar