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The Bill of Rights were actually additions, but subsequent Amendments have superseded both original text of the Constitution and even previous Amendments.
The way it is? Per whom? the 20th Century courts (enabled by the Socialist takeover of Congress since 1900’s)? There’s no stomping nor screaming needed...only thinking and talking.
True, Amendments are passed to change the Constitution. They are to do so EXPLICITLY.
The 16h, as ratified, changed ONE thing only (”...without apportionment...without regard to any census or enumeration.”). There is NO other verbiage to even insinuate any other changes.
Is the fallacy that Congress, given this new power, can therefor strip the People of all other Rights to collect said ‘income’ (let’s not even get into the discussion of what THAT term means.)??
If so, which other Rights? How/why? If not, how can the 16th be valid and trample the 4th, 5th, etc.?
Where else does there exist Amendment conflict, such as this? None that I can see, have read. 21st was specific (repeal 18th), 20th specified extra parameters....