Why have we not repealed the 16th amendment to the constitution?

Has there been some kind of official investigation or trial to see if it was legally ratified? I've heard that the number of states required to ratify the amendment did not approve of it legally which supposedly would mean that they can't be counted towards the required number of states.



And, why would so many states want to approve such an evil thing in the first place?

And, is it ironic that the 16th amendment is "ratified" on the same year as the birth of the creature from Jekyll Island?Why have we not repealed the 16th amendment to the constitution?
The 16th Amendment allows for the income tax.



There is a long standing claim by tax protesters that the amendment wasn't properly ratified. The focus seems to be on the text of what was voted on, the process that each state used and conflicts between state ratification and the state constitution.Finally there's the argument that Ohio isn't a state for it couldn't ratify the amendment



"When the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by state legislatures in the early twentieth century, the versions that some states voted on contained minor textual errors. Some of them neglected to capitalize the word "States," one had "income" in place of "incomes," one said "remuneration" instead of "enumeration," one said "levy" instead of "lay," and so on.



If the states didn't all vote on the same, identical text for the Sixteenth Amendment, can the amendment really be considered ratified? When Congress makes a law, the House and the Senate must vote on the same text. Similarly, if the states didn't vote on the right text, one could argue that they didn't ratify the amendment. No Sixteenth Amendment, no income tax.



However, it seems that the amendment really was ratified. The alleged defects in the ratification process were considered at the time of ratification in 1913. The Solicitor of the Department of State convincingly explained why the minor textual variations in the versions the states voted on should be disregarded



states, when voting on a constitutional amendment, have no power to make changes to the amendment's text. They can only vote yes or no on the text that Congress has proposed to them. The situation is not comparable to the passage of a bill through Congress, where either house can make amendments"

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/P鈥?/a>



Each year the IRS publishes "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments" On the 16th Amendment:



"The Law: The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. U.S. Const. amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio (which became a state in 1803; see Bowman v. United States, 920 F. Supp. 623 n.1 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (discussing the 1953 joint Congressional resolution that confirmed Ohio鈥檚 status as a state retroactive to 1803), and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only three鈥慺ourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment. There were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax."

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id鈥?/a>



Given the facts, case law, and precedence won't convince the tax protesters. In researching this question we noted that many of the sites give the exact same explaination in the same words. You do have to ask why the court cases have always gone against them. Oh yes, massive government conspiracy seems to be the only answer.