In Marbury v Madison, Justice Marshall and SCOTUS rightly claimed the constitutional power of judicial review of legislative acts. Marbury, however, does not rule against the power of the states to declare a federal act unconstitutional. The ruling does not directly address this issue at all. However, the ruling, in correctly characterizing the Constitution, does give weight to the inherent power of the states to so rule against either unconstitutional federal legislation or rulings.
The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained?...[T]he theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void…From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature. Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) at 176, 177, 179-80.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137#writing-USSC_CR_0005_0137_ZO
Arizona has just passed such a law which allows the state legislature and court to determine whether a questionable federal act, like Obamacare for instance, is unconstitutional and if so, the state reserves the right to reject that law.
Likewise if a federal or state court found that the 16th Amendment is not a validly ratified amendment, then I think there's grounds for at least that state to nullify since it would not be truly part of the Constitution.
no Federal court has come close to holding the 16th Amendment was never ratified in the 100 some odd years the argument has been repeatedly raised.
Need a relevant case sited here preferably with an opinion founded on Constitution-based reasoning, something many modern-day SCOTUS opinions are sadly lacking. Since a case questioning the validity of the 16th Amendment could directly affect the paychecks and employment of federal employees like federal judges, one wonders how neutral a federal court would be about such a case. I'd like to see a state case that tried and had a Constitution-based ruling on this.
Barring invalidating the 16A, as previously discussed, a Constitutional Amendment repealing the 16th and implementing a CLEARLY DEFINED "consumption" tax (no VAT) could work.
Whether repealing the 16A would abolish the income tax is not a settled issue by any means. Pollack invalidated the income tax in question and Brushaber was a case about a stockholder who objected to a company volunteering to pay income tax thus reducing the stockholder's dividends. Not really on point although the Left and government loves to use it.
There's much confusion and controversy about the original intent and meaning of "direct", "indirect", and "excise" taxes" in the Constitution. Along with repealing the 16A, the proposed Constitutional Amendment could also prohibit any form of income tax with clear language stating such. The chances of passing such an amendment seems remote to me, but I'd like to see it.
Barring removal of the 16th Amendment, we're back to a flat income tax, although I agree with Hostage's reasoning that income tax is a kind of involuntary servitude (slave) tax. But until income tax is removed from off the table, the best we can do is a low flat tax around 10%.
Besides all of this, the greatest challenge we have in America is cutting out the unconstitutional portion of the $4 trillion federal government, which would shut down most of it. Because the likelihood of that happening is also remote, states who believe in a free Constitutional Republic with limited government need to seriously consider nullification of unconstitutional federal acts.