Punished UMN wrote:Ifreann wrote:If there's no distinction between the two, why are both terms used in the Constitution? Why are they called rights in some places and powers in others? Just an idle literary flourish? Could it perhaps be because...
And as has been explained to you, the Supreme court disagrees, there have been multiple cases where federal law has been struck down because it violates the states' rights to their internal affairs. There are certain policies and ways of achieving policy that the federal government does not have the power to do because it interferes with the states.
That there are matters over which the states have power and not the federal government does not constitute states rights. Not unless rights and powers are the same thing, which brings me back to the question about why the Constitution uses both terms.