GOP Rep. Rob Bishop has introduced the Repeal Amendment in the House. As I described here, the Repeal Amendment would allow a supermajority of states to overturn federal law, thus undoing some of the damage done to federalism by the 17th Amendment. Incoming majority leader Cantor reportedly praised the amendment, saying, "The Repeal Amendment would provide a check on the ever-expanding federal government, protect against Congressional overreach, and get the government working for the people again, not the other way around."
Over at the Washington Post, Dana Milbank reacted by regurgitating the now well-rehearsed liberal line: "Hey, if these guys are originalists, what are they doing amending the Constitution?" I wouldn't ordinarily dignify this absurd argument, but I was delighted to see that The Economist's "Democracy in America" blog has devoted a lengthy (by blog standards) post explaining to Milbank and his ilk that the original Constitution allows for amending -- the Economist tartly comments: "Mr Milbank may be surprised to discover that originalists do not consider the Bill of Rights an intolerable assault on the constitution's initial design." But the Economist blog goes even further to explain why the Repeal Amendment might further the worthy cause of decentralizing political power (invoking Hayek, no less). I would never describe The Economist or its associated blog as "conservative," but when they get it right, they really nail it.