Devvy Kidd argues that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, allowing the income tax, was never properly ratified.
She may well be correct, but does she honestly believe that any court will find in her favor?
The fact of the matter is, the courts have a vested interest in keeping the source of funding flowing. The conclusion (that the income tax is constitutional) has been made, and the facts of the case will have to be made to fit around that. The fact of the matter is, the courts will determine that "yes" means "no," and "up" means "down" if such is necessary for the income tax to keep existing.
So basically, it seems to me that Ms. Kidd is overly excited about her apparent finding. Even if she is correct, it means squat.
That is all.