[conway]

You're all missing te point. The power to bring up a law to impose a bill of capitation is denied Congress.

In order for them to propose an Amendment like that.legally, would require that stipulation to be deleted from the Constitution first.

In other words, they would first have to have our permission to delete that clause so they could introduce such a bill.

[Huck]

Actually, you are missing the point. Take care.

[Huck]

Try this:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment16/01.html#1

[Dead Dog]

You have a good point.

Can congress really eliminate an inaliable right? To do so defies common sense.

Also, before the 16th Amendment, amendments only further restricted or narrowed the scope of government. This changed after the 16th amendment.

Otherwise all we have is a document painted on the side of a barn with the piggies holding the paintbrush.

It makes sense that a constitution designed to guarantee a minimalist government subservient to the people, by force of arms, would not allow modification to invert that principle. Which the 16th amendment does.

[DonQ]

In other words, they would first have to have our permission to delete that clause so they could introduce such a bill.

Unlike some state constitutions, words of the the US Constitution are never deleted, although they may be made ineffective by subsequent amendments (e.g., the 21st Amendment which repealed Prohibition, the 18th Amendment). The Constitution had already given the Congress to imposes taxes, such as excise taxes, but originally prohibited Congress from levying an individual income tax. The 16th Amendment eliminated that prohibition. See Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co. (1916) 240 US 1, 60 L.Ed 493, 36 S.Ct 236.