[hoosierham]

Another minor point : the State of Ohio didn't ratify the income tax admendment when the rest of the ratifying states did, but RETROACTIVELY more than 40 years later.

Another minor point : Even if/when any person can prove the process was not followed correctly, the lawyers in government (including judges) simply rule that it was intended. If someone proved beyond doubt that the income tax of today is unconstitutional and illegal, I have no doubt that the courts would nonetheless order its enforcement "because of national security". This applies as well to any that would cause loss of bereaucratic authority . Those that gain power NEVER willingly give it up.

[Pern]

Those that gain power NEVER willingly give it up.

Then it must be TAKEN from them.

[Poohbah]

Actually, the problem is more fundamental: from the earliest days of the Republic, the courts have held that issues of whether a consitutional amendment was properly ratified or not are not legal questions within the purview of the judiciary; instead, they are political matters to be resolved by the Congress and the legislatures of the several states.

And I, for one, say "Thank God Almighty that the courts aren't inserting themselves into those issues, at least."

Consider this: by the statements of those who argue as you do re: the 16th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment was never ratified, either. You want to hand Hillary Clinton and Sarah Brady the tool needed for outlawing private weapons ownership?