Re: Why is current a fundamental quantity and not charge?

Instead of viewing the Ampere as a coulomb/second, why not view the coulomb
as an Ampere * second? That solves your problem immediately.

However, there are two main reasons for viewing the amp as a fundamental
quantity rather than the coloumb. One is historical: we were able to
perform experiments to measure the amp much much earlier than experiments
to measure the charge of an electron. Thus, the amp was known before the
coulomb.

The second is an effort in the part of the SI people to have the smallest
set of "fundamental" quantities. From my copy of Halliday and Resnik
(Fundamentals of Physics) we see that the ampere is "that constant current
which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors in infinite
length, of negligible circular cross section, and placed 1 meter apart in a
vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2x10^-7
newton per meter of length." If we were to make a comparable statement
about charge, then we would either have to say something about the rate at
which the charge is flowing (the current!), which would complicate the
definition, or we would have to describe it in terms of two fixed point
charges, which would raise the issue of the sign of the charge, if the
force was positive or negative, and other issues.

Honestly, I  thing the SI committee had to make a decision about which to
include and chose the one that had more effect in everyday life. 

For your last question, regarding why we don't have both charge and
current, the answer is simple: the table is supposed to be minimal. We can
define current in terms of charge or charge in terms of current, so we
don't need both of them in a list of "fundamental" quantities.