@wokkamile

1. A common message board tactic is simply ignoring that which cannot be refuted. Nonetheless, I'm glad to see that you are not insisting that mentioning a part of the Bill of Rights, a part mentioned by Ted Kennedy, among many others, is inherently right wing. But, how about responding to my my request that you link to some authority to support your claim about the federal government being able to override state laws as to voting by felons, incarcerated or not?

Also, in my prior post, I reminded you that I had raised the Tenth Amendment initially solely to say that Sanders could easily have responded to questions about terrorists voting in a way that would not have risked votes. I'm not sure why we keep going on about it as though it were the OP topic, but, as long as you are, I will respond.

the first part of the 10th -- the powers that are delegated to the federal govt by the constitution.

2. Nope. I am not forgetting a thing about the Tenth Amendment. I was the one who brought it up. And again, I brought it up only to say that Bernie could easily have avoided risky comments.

However, your statement of how the Tenth begins is incorrect. The Tenth Amendment says

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it {the Constitution} to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That distinction is important. It means that, if the Constitution does not grant the federal government a power, the federal government does not have that power, full stop. Rather, the states and/or the people have that power because they retained it, all governing powers having been in the colonies/states or the people in the first instance (once the colonies declared independence from the monarchy, of course).

That the form of government the Constitution established was federalism is basic civics (also part of the Pledge of Allegiance). Federalism means that the powers of the federal government are only those specified in the Constitution--that the federal government is a government of limited powers, delegated to the federal government by the states and the people. powers/ And, of course, it was the colonies/states that granted the federal government whatever powers the Constitution gives the federal government when they ratified the Constitution. Anyway, that's how the Tenth Amendment reads and what it means.

So, per the words of the Tenth Amendment, unless you find somewhere in the Constitution of the US a provision whereby the colonies/states granted the feds power to decide whether states can withhold voting rights from felons or a provision of the Constitution that forbids the states from making that determination...

Clearly the Con gives such power to the feds in the area of voting and they have acted in many ways over the years, with fed legislation and constitutional amendments, to further define rights and limitations on rights in voting.

3. What you keep claiming is clear is not at all clear. Again, I requested a link to authority. If it's as clear as you keep claiming it is, finding a links to a Constitutional provision or a Supreme Court case or some other unequivocal authority should be quick and easy.

If they didn't have such right, numerous old Confederacy states would have Jim Crow laws up the wazoo restricting voting for minorities, including poll taxes and literacy tests, probably including a skin darkness test.

4. No. Again, this is basic civics, but here goes. You can't simply conflate a Constitutional amendment with a federal statute, as does the above quote from your post. A Constitutional amendment requires ratification by a certain percentage state legislatures.

A constitutional amendment is not the federal government deciding for the states and the people. In fact, it's just the opposite: A Constitutional Amendment is the Constitutionally-mandated percentage of state legislatures deciding what the federal government has power do, as state legislatures have been doing since state legislatures ratified the Constitution in 1789. (These days, the state legislatures voluntarily put it to a vote of their citizens before deciding whether or not to ratify, but that is political, not required and was not always the case.)

On the Civil War amendments, are you saying they are somehow invalid? Why?

5. No. I neither said nor implied anything remotely like that. Thank heaven, slavery is still illegal in the US' and, thank heaven, I still know that.

If they didn't have such right, numerous old Confederacy states would have Jim Crow laws up the wazoo restricting voting for minorities, including poll taxes and literacy tests, probably including a skin darkness test. How do you think they are prevented from doing so?

6. Good grief. Everyone who posts on political boards should know that.

States are prevented from discriminating against constitutionally-protected classes pursuant to an express, but limited, grant of power, in the Civil Rights Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, just as a prior post of mine to you referenced. The Constitutional provisions are not about voting per se, but about impermissible kinds of discrimination. And they are also about deprivations without due process. A criminal trial, held in accordance with the Constitution, is more due process than citizens get in other contexts, including civil trials.

The requisite percentage of states ratified the Civil War Amendments, so the states expressly granted the federal government certain, limited powers over discrimination. Hence my reference to the Civil War Amendments in my earlier post. However, the Civil War Amendments did not grant Congress the power to force states to allow convicted felons to vote.

7. As to poll taxes, a 1965 amendment to the US Constitution outlawed poll taxes. And, again, a Constitutional Amendment is the states telling the federal government what the federal government has power to do, not the federal government usurping the power reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment and by the general structure of federalism itself.

8. As for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act: The Supreme Court Constitutional holding in Plessy v. Ferguson, a case decided in the late 1800s and interpreting the equal rights clause of the 14th Amendment, permitted "separate but equal" facilities. Sadly, that took the form of Jim Crow, about which Congress didn't even try to do a thing until the Great Migration made electing Democratic Presidents difficult. However, in Bd. of Ed. v. Brown, decided in 1956, the Supreme Court reversed its holding in Plessy, holding in Brown instead that separate was not equal after all and therefore "separate but (allegedly) equal" violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Brown's reversal of Plessy, along with the Civil War Amendments themselves, empowered Congress to pass both the Civil Rights Act of 1964, abolishing Jim Crow and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Again, however, nothing in the Civil War Amendments empowers Congress to override state laws about voting (or not) by felons.

Has the Voting Rights Act of 1965 been successfully challenged on 10th Am grounds in the Sup Ct?

9. Yes.

However, that is not a question one should ask a fellow poster.

The case is a very well-known, much posted about and relatively recent decision. And, again, the Voting Rights Act was passed pursuant to a specific provision of the Civil War Amendments to the Constitution, not pursuant to some non-existent, vague, wide-ranging power of Congress to decide what states may or may not do about voting by convicted felons.
I personally think the Supreme Court overreached, but that is beside the point.

I've responded to your specific comments and questions about the Constitution, even though I said it was a tangent. However, this is not the reason I post. From this point forward, I'll respond substantively only if you provide specific authority for your claims.

As for the rest of your comments, I've already commented on them and see no reason for repetition.

#8.2.1.1 the first part of the 10th -- the powers that are delegated to the federal govt by the constitution. Clearly the Con gives such power to the feds in the area of voting and they have acted in many ways over the years, with fed legislation and constitutional amendments, to further define rights and limitations on rights in voting. If they didn't have such right, numerous old Confederacy states would have Jim Crow laws up the wazoo restricting voting for minorities, including poll taxes and literacy tests, probably including a skin darkness test. How do you think they are prevented from doing so? Has the Voting Rights Act of 1965 been successfully challenged on 10th Am grounds in the Sup Ct?

On the Civil War amendments, are you saying they are somehow invalid? Why?

As to Bernie's proposal, giving incarcerated felons voting rights is a fairly new issue for voters, so this is just the introductory period and nothing is too late to make further revisions, as I suggested he make. Few would care if he did so, especially if it were adjusted to come closer to what is probably the majority view. But I doubt if he will take my advice. He seems firm on his slippery slope position.