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....
You may not like the decisions of the courts over the years, I take issue with many myself.
You may find areas where there are apparent inconsistencies that have crept into the Constitution via Amendments. OK.
The rest of your rant is certifiably loony. But then, this is an open forum, and you get this kind of thing.