Const. issues? The 16th is already as illegal and unconst. as you CAN get. Anti-4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, 13th....Let alone allows a plethora of black/gray areas (do the poor/retired not use services? Yet they pay [almost] $0).
Sorry, no more tiered slave tax on the WORKERS/PRODUCERS, and no more HAND-OUTS to those that never paid penny ONE into the coffers from which the govt giveth.
Kill off the income tax, kill off illegal/uncon. programs/dept/agencies/etc., balance the remaining budget and THEN talk about paying for what’s left (which, IMO, should be paid by the States, in turn by the People through biz...so they should be furthest from the govt at all levels, and closer to the watchful eye).
Enough with the slice here, nip there, tuck...
Sorry to rain on your parade, but a Constitutional Amendment cannot be, by definition, “unconstitutionalâ€.
An Amendment can embody bad policy, it can be counterproductive, it may represent an affront to common sense, and it can be destructive to the general purpose and intent of the Founders (as is the 17th is, for example), but it can never be unconstitutional.
As John has already pointed out, you are contradicting yourself.
A Constitutional Amendment is, by definition, the Constitution.
If an Amendment conflicts with an earlier version of the Constitution, the Amendment is the last word on the subject.
By your rationale, the 21st Amendment didn't repeal the 18th Amendment, and I don't know anyone sane that would agree with that.