[Oceander]

To ratify is not the same as to enact. I've already posted more than enough on that point, so why don't you respond to that?

Beyond that, there is nothing else to respond to: the pretense ('cause it sure doesn't qualify as an argument) that the 13th Amendment somehow - magically, and by some strange aura or emanation or, dare I say, penumbra - repealed or modified Article V of the Constitution, or even better, magically anticipated the 16th Amendment and then somehow, through some sleight of hand (perhaps a legislative wormhole) repealed the 16th Amendment before it was even contemplated by, let alone proposed by, Congress, is simply not worth any more time and effort - it should be self-evident to all but a liberal that, unless the 13th Amendment changed the operative language of Article V - which it did not - that the 13th Amendment cannot have had any effect on the 16th Amendment; rather, to the extent that there is any conflict between the 13th and the 16th, the 16th controls.

[tisket]

What do you do - sleep with the IRC under your pillow?

That was the most convoluted answer, not to my posts, but to your own previous posts earlier in this thread. You sound like an IRS shill, for heaven's sake. Especially by throwing the epithet "liberal" at me. Only trolls seem to have a need to do that, as if by using the worst insult they can think of, they hope to derail logical discussion.

As I said earlier, a basic tenet of law is that there can be no contradiction. If this is something that is beyond your comprehension (or your pay grade) then any further explanation I can offer would be moot.