There is something about the topic of validity that seems to provoke dissatisfaction in many of those who encounter it--a sense that something is not right, and that something needs to be done to sort it out. Paul E. Newton in his target essay does not attempt a radical reconstruction of the validity edifice. His position is that the "consensus definition" broadly enshrined in the AERA/APA/NCME Standards is reasonable, but could be clarified/honed/disambiguated in several places in order to promote better professional dialogue, and better validation practice. Newton's summary of the four elements of the current consensus hits the nail on the head in bringing into focus the problems with validity likely to be encountered by a newcomer to the world of educational and psychological measurement and assessment (EPMA). There are three features of Newton's article that the author would like to comment further on: (a) the idea that measurement is unavoidably involved in defining assessment validity; (b) the meaning of "construct"; and (3) the feasibility of imposing a definition. (Contains 1 footnote.)