Even if it did, then the 16th amendment repealed the 13th.
Okay but isn’t the 16th unconstitutional?
The 16th was never ratified - but being the feds, they just went ahead with collecting the money anyway.
No it didn't. That's why Paul's assertion is valid. There is a conflict. The 13th outlawed slavery. The 16th has been abused to the point where we have become slaves to the government. The 16th was ill conceived. There is no limit on how much tax can be imposed, nor does it comply with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. It is wrong to lay unequal burdens upon citizens. It is wrong to memorialize a disincentive to success in the Constitution. A progressive tax is a disincentive to succeed.
the 16th was not passes legally. There is evidence of states that voted no were registered as yes and some states changed the wording of the amendment which made it illegal to do so.
Many have debated whether the 16th amendment was ever validly ratified so some might try to fall back on that argument, but I tend to agree with you that the 16th would have superseded the 13th in the realm of taxes. The argument presumes that taxation=involuntary servitude...which would mean that all taxes would be a form of involuntary servitude, and I doubt that the 16th amendment intended to abolish all taxation. However, that being said, there is also the issue that you raised about the 16th amendment superseding the 13th amendment that might be worth mentioning.
No where in the Constitution does it say that a later constitutional amendment supersedes a previous amendment. (Therefore, it is technically not a binding principle.) If an amendment does not explicitly repeal a part of the Constitution, then both contradicting clauses may be argued to be both be validly part of the Constitution. If there is a contradiction of interpretation between two parts of the constitution owing to the addition of a new amendment to the constitution, then the contradiction must be settled by the Supreme Court. But as you are aware, up to now, the Supreme Court has generally held that if there are contradicting clauses that have resulted from amending the Constitution that the most recently ratified provision prevails. However, following this principle can lead to wild judicial activism as it is not always clear whether an amendment intended to repeal certain provisions of the constitution or not. Thus amending the constitution without explicitly repealing a contradicting portion can lead to bizarre judgments by courts on what portions of the Constitution have and haven't been superseded by an amendment. Judicial activism at its finest.