[Oceander]

Again, you are mistaken. The Constitution cannot contrdict itself - it is one of the basic tenets of law. Since the 13th came first, it is the 16th that must be corrected to not contradict it. If you're pro-tax, why not just come out and say so?

Ahh, so, since the Amendment that imposed Prohibition came first, the Amendment that repealed Prohibition must not have accomplished what we all have been thinking it did - since the Amendment imposing Prohibition came first, it must be the amendment that repealed Prohibition that is in need of correction, at least if we follow your "argument."

"Pro-tax" - why, if I am then I'm in very fine company, as the Founders were all pro-tax themselves, too. Or haven't you read those bits of the original Constitution that granted Congress the power to tax, subject only to two limitations, that all direct taxes (being property taxes and head, or capitation, taxes) be apportioned among the states according to the enumeration of the census, and all other taxes being imposed with uniform rates.

Speaking of which, I don't suppose you've ever actually read the Income Tax Cases - the two Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. cases that held the last pre-amendment income tax unconstititional, have you? If you had, you'd know that under the holding of those two cases, the only income Congress could not have taxed with an income tax like the one we have today would be income derived from real property or personal property; with respect to all other income - including most particularly wages - the Supreme Court in those two cases explicitly held that such other types of income, such as wages, could be taxed under the Constitution so long as the rates imposed were uniform.

So, if one were to succeed at the fools' errand of repealing the 16th Amendment, wages, salaries, and compensation for services rendered would still be subject to the Internal Revenue Code and the taxes imposed thereunder; the only income that would no longer be subject to tax under the Internal Revenue Code would be capital gains, rents and royalties from real property, and income derived from capital assets, such as interest paid on loans extended, dividends on shares of stock held, and the like.

Not a very pretty picture if you ask me.

[tisket]

Again, you are confusing what was actually passed into law by a majority vote in Congress versus what was only thought of as law by carrying out it's provisions and benefiting from the results of those actions. Read your own first post - you state it very clearly there yourself.

As for your Prohibition argument - you are comparing apples and oranges. The Prohibition legal situation was properly carried out - the taxation situation wasn't.

[ejonesie22]

Ahh, so, since the Amendment that imposed Prohibition came first, the Amendment that repealed Prohibition must not have accomplished what we all have been thinking it did - since the Amendment imposing Prohibition came first, it must be the amendment that repealed Prohibition that is in need of correction, at least if we follow your "argument."

(ouch)