Yes, Amending The Constitution IS Possible

Apparently, Virginia's moonbatosphere is in high dudgeon over Governor Bob McDonnell's endorsement of a constitutional amendment permitting two-thirds of the states to reject or "nullify" a Federal law or regulation.  The moonbats over at "Blue Virginia" (AKA "Don McEachin's Press Office"; can't do an effective link, but just search "McEachin" using the site's search function) opine "So much for Bob McDonnell understanding what the Civil War was all about."

Recall, of course, that this was the same site that --- indeed, the same author who --- savaged Bob McDonnell for daring to point out that:

McDonnell said he did not include a reference to slavery because "there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia.

Here's how "lowkell" responded to that bold and controversial statement:

WTF?!? Slavery wasn't one of the "most significant" parts of Virginia history? My god [sic, unless, of course, "lowkell" is referring to his god, i.e., big government"), what did they teach this guy at Pat Robertson's law school?

In response - and rightly so! - "The proclamation was condemned by the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus and the NAACP. Former governor L. Douglas Wilder called it "mind-boggling to say the least" that McDonnell did not reference slavery or Virginia's struggle with civil rights in his proclamation." I agree strongly with the Legislative Black Caucus and Doug Wilder; McDonnell's airbrushing of slavery and the civil rights struggle is completely outrageous, shameful, and unacceptable.

Funny, but I missed "lowkell's" reference (at least back in April) mentioning that nullification was "what the Civil War was all about."  Perhaps he was "airbrushing" it at the time.

And so much for --- huge surprise here --- moonbats "understanding what the [Constitution] is all about."  Perhaps, when you have judges who are willing to defy the plain language of the Constitution to enact your policy goals, you forget that amending the document is the anticipated way of doing things.

Article V of the Constitution specifically provides:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; ...and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Soooo, amending the Constitution is permissible --- and was even anticipated --- by the Framers.  Indeed, many of them were in the first Congress, which proposed twelve amendments, ten of which were adopted as the Bill of Rights, and one of which was eventually adopted as our latest amendment.

Whether the proposed amendment is a good idea is an eminently debatable point, and a different question entirely.  And as constitutional conservative, I am skeptical of any effort to amend the basic law of the land.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the moonbats from the far Left bothering to address the issue on the merits.