Compare and contrast the roles of the federal government and the civil rights activists

Throughout the periods of the 1960s, 1970´s and 1980´s, both the federal government and the civil rights activists each played a really important role that defined the outcome of the entire civil rights movement.

First, and foremost, comes the role of the government. It was important because its policies and actions, in favor, and against, the civil rights movement, determined the course of action and the outcomes on the entire cause. For example, since the Civil War, and even before that, the lack of action of the federal government, or the indecisive position on the matter of civil rights, despite having passed legislation in favor of disegregation and voting rights, forced activists and protesters to take more fervent and, even violent action, to ensure that the legislation that had been passed, was enforced by the government. This was never more clearly seen than during the 1960´s, when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as a harsh response because the legislation that had been passed before in favor of the civil rights had been totally disregarded by the states.

But these results, which in the end launched the cause of the civil rights movement, were thanks to the active, and dynamic role that was played by activists, such as Martin Luther King Jr., just to mention one of the many. Through their protests, boycotts, and even sometimes violent actions, the U.S finally passed legislation t hat enforced and ensured the rights of African Americans, against the position of individuals and states on the matter.

These have been some of the roles that have been played by both the federal government and civil rights activists.

b) a state law could be declared illegal if it contradicted the constitution.

explanation:

the conflict of this case originated when james w. mcculloch, a cashier of the baltimore branch of the second bank of the united states that the congress had chartered in 1816, refused to pay a tax imposed by the maryland state.

in the case, the state of maryland appealed that the establishment of a second bank was unconstitutional since the constitution didn't say anything about granting that power to congress. however, the case determined that even if such right wasn't specifically stated in the constitution, it was part of the "implied powers" of the government enunciated in article i, section 8.

the case also eliminated maryland's legislation to impose taxes to a national bank, asserting that even though the states retained the power of taxation, the constitution's laws are supreme and can not be controlled by the states, therefore, if a state law contradicts the constitution, it should be declared illegal.

explanation: