I beg to differ. A 100% ‘income tax’ (IT) IS the definition of slavery (vs. 13th). A graduated IT is slavery...to degrees.
So, unless you’re trying to argue the 16th (in invisible ink, or some lawyer nuance/penumbra) supersedes the 4th, 5th, 13th+, it is still constrained by the same Amendments.
Sorry, but, IMO, you can’t have it both ways.
I'm not arguing anything. That's the way it is. Stomping your feet and screaming doesn't change it.
The whole point of a Constitutional Amendment is to change the Constitution.
An example: James Madison originally drafted an edited Constitution in 1791, making changes where he thought was appropriate to address the concerns of Anti-Federalists that thought a Bill of Rights was necessary.
Other members of Congress objected, saying they had no authority to actually change the the original wording of the Constitution. So, the House instead drafted Amendments, which changed the Constitution without editing the original text.
The Bill of Rights were actually additions, but subsequent Amendments have superseded both original text of the Constitution and even previous Amendments.