My President doesn't have to get the 16th Amendment repealed by another amendment. All he has to do is get the SCOTUS to declare it improperly ratified and null and void. That would force Congress to come up with a new taxation plan since there would be no IRS and no income tax. Dubya and the Valiant Warriors could then proceed to create whatever they want as the new tax system without regard to anything the losers may try to say about changing the system.
My President doesn't have to get the 16th Amendment repealed by another amendment. All he has to do is get the SCOTUS to declare it improperly ratified and null and void.
It doesn't work that way. SCOTUS does not answer to the President. They are supposed to only answer to the constitution, though in recent years, they often put the legal profession that they serve above the Constitution.
Also, SCOTUS has repeatedly refused to hear cases on improper ratification of any amendment, not just the 16th Amendment. SCOTUS follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 12 [*447] S. Ct. 495, 36 L. Ed. 294 ( 1892). This principle is treated as equally applicable to constitutional amendments. Under the "enrolled bill rule," the mere fact that Secretary Knox, acting as the Administration's proper representative, declared that enough states had ratified the 16th Amendment, must be upheld by SCOTUS. In other words, questions about ratification of amendments are "nonjusticiable." The court considers the "enrolled bill rule" as necessary to insure the separation of powers. It all boils down to one simple statement:
If the other two branches of government, through their proper representatives, certify that an amendment has been properly ratified, then the Court must treat the amendment as having been properly ratified.
Numerous Courts down through the years have taken this same position on cases related to not only the 16th Amendment. As I recall, the 19th Amendment has also faced similar challenges and the Court refused to hear that case for the same reason. The long and sordid history of similar SCOTUS rulings should be more than enough to convince all but the most fanatical TP'ers that your chances of overturning the 16th Amendment in the Court are next to nil.
Face it SCOTUS isn't going to answer to Dubya and they will never even hear a ratification challenge to the 16th Amendment.