[JOHN W K]

Your opinion is noted. But keep in mind the 16th Amendment made no change with regard to direct taxation, or, the legislative intent for which the rule of apportionment was adopted.

JWK

[Procyon]

While Congress retains the power to impose a direct (or head) tax on every person within the United States it chooses not to do so. It is easier and far more lucrative to collect indirect taxes upon income which they have been able to do since the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. So the examples provided showing the disparity of revenues collected vs electoral votes (or population) reveals that Californians on average are not reporting incomes higher than many other States. But it’s merely a statistical curiosity and has no Constitutional implications.

[Clump]

Sorry pal, I agree that the language of the 16th Amendment specifically negated the Apportionment rule.
I don’t like it, and I’m confident this country would be far better off had the 16th and 17th Amendments not become part of the Constitution.
That said, Mark Levin is spot on.
I have somewhat specialized in constitutional criminal procedure since completing law school, but I’m quite up to speed on the other relevant portions of the Constitution as well.
I’m not claiming to always be correct without some research, for there are some very complicated (unneccessarily complicated) issues.