Fact check: What was the Congressional vote to pass the 16th Amendment and which States ratified it?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, the 16th Amendment was passed by Congress on July 2, 1909 ^[1]. The amendment was subsequently ratified on February 3, 1913 by the requisite number of states ^{[2] [3] [1]}.

The amendment fundamentally changed the Constitution by allowing Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states on the basis of population ^[2]. Specifically, it modified Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution and permits Congress to "lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration" ^[4].

While the analyses confirm the congressional passage date and ratification date, only one source ^[2] claims to provide a detailed list of the states that ratified the amendment, though the specific state names are not included in the analysis summaries provided.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question seeks specific information about the Congressional vote count, which is notably absent from all analyses. None of the sources provide the actual vote tallies from either the House of Representatives or the Senate when the amendment was passed on July 2, 1909.

Additionally, while one analysis mentions that the amendment was "a key goal for many progressive groups, who argued that it was fairer for wealthy individuals to pay for the taxes and tariffs that had been largely obliged from the middle class and the poor in society" ^[3], there is limited context about opposition viewpoints or the political debates surrounding the amendment's passage.

The analyses also reference ongoing legal challenges, with sources discussing Supreme Court cases that could potentially impact the interpretation of the 16th Amendment and "wreak havoc on the tax code" ^{[5] [6]}, suggesting that the amendment's scope and application remain subjects of contemporary legal debate.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement does not contain misinformation but rather poses a factual question seeking specific historical data. However, the question's framing assumes that complete information about both the Congressional vote and state ratification details should be readily available together, when in fact the analyses reveal that while ratification information exists, specific Congressional vote counts are not provided in the available sources.

The question is straightforward and factual in nature, seeking historical records rather than making claims that could be biased or misleading.