I had to narrow it down to three points to keep everyone from snoozing on me ;-) But anyway, it's true that I have serious problems with the way the 14th amendment's being applied, especially the equal-protection clause. Equal protection of the laws does not mean equal treatment by the laws. It only means that if someone's rights are violated, he's entitled to redress no matter who he is or what his station in life is.
As for the 16th, I brought this up on another thread, but didn't get an answer: Why is it that when it's applied to corporations, "income" means what they get in, minus what they spend, whereas when it applies to ordinary folk like us, it only applies to what we take in? What's up with that?
I *think* they justify that with the "personal exemptions."
From my tax classes back in the mid-80's it was referred to as the "allowance" if you will for mere substanece... bread, water. Amazing huh?