It seems that Kellis91789 is a closer reader of what has been said than are you.
He's right; I never did say (or imply) that the FairTax bill repealed the 16 to amend the Constitution - which is what was in your post #104 when you said "... not possible for a law to amend the Constitution ..." with the clear meaning you were talking about the fact you were positing that I somehow stated the FairTax bill amended the Constitution.
I did not.
What was really being communicated to you if you but understood is that it is neither necessary OR desireable to repeal the 16th first since absolutely eliminating the income tax etc. prevents it from coming right back into being. Hard to believe you can't/don't want to understand that.
Thinking it can be repealed first merely leaves those (such as Charlie Rangel) who wish us to have both at the same time and are actively to bring that about (which you apparently don't realize - or do realize it and approve) a lot more leeway to work toward having both. From the tone and tenor of your posts on the matter I have to think that you are one of these hoping to have both taxes at once.
None of the FairTax supporters hope for that - just the opposite, in fact.
False, but nice try. I posited no such thing.
that it is neither necessary OR desireable to repeal the 16th first since absolutely eliminating the income tax etc. prevents it from coming right back into being.
False, but nice try. In fact, precisely the opposite is true. Hard to believe you can't/don't want to understand that.
Clearly, you want both taxes. It is the only way to interpret your insistence that a constitutional amendment not be made first. Either you want both or you are logically impaired, which is it?