After Health Care Fiasco, Mike Huckabee Calls For 17th Amendment To Be Repealed

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is fighting mad after the Senate refused to repeal Obamacare this week. He has an idea for a reform that would take us back to the original intent of the Constitution by repealing the 17th Amendment, which allowed for the popular vote of senators.

“Time to repeal 17th Amendment. Founders had it right-Senators chosen by state legislatures,” Huckabee wrote in a first Tweet that set off a host of angry responses from liberals and conservatives alike.

Undeterred by the negative feedback, Huckabee re-emphasized his earlier statement with a follow-up Tweet.

“Ignorance of history of 17th Amendment is revealed by response to my earlier Tweet. Direct election of Senate is major cause of #swamp,” Huckabee wrote in the second Tweet.

Before the inaction of the 17th Amendment in 1913, senators would be appointed by the legislature of a given state. If the state legislature was pressured enough by the people, they could remove the Senator at any given time. This was a check against the Senate growing too powerful, and apart of the grand design of the Founding Fathers to limit centralized control.

During the progressive era, the American public was sold on the virtues of democracy by statists trying to pervert the Republic. Democracy, they were told, would improve the legislature as Senators would need to impress the public to obtain office. Americans were suckered by this malarkey, and the result is a systemically corrupt legislature with virtually no way to fix it.

The direct election of Senators was enacted during the same year as two other controversial measures that the Founding Fathers would have reviled: the income tax and the Federal Reserve. Those diabolical changes in the structure of American Republic have been wreaking havoc on our freedom and our prosperity ever since.

While Huckabee’s stance may not have popular support at the present time, his willingness to advocate for this solution is laudable. The swamp will not be drained until the damage that has been done over the course of many decades is finally reversed. Repealing the 17th Amendment would be a huge first step toward doing just that.


    • Oh? What would happen? Senators may actually pay attention to their constituents because they could actually risk losing their job??

      Seriously. What great travesty would be brought if the 17th was repealed??

      Go ahead and slippery slope the fuck outta it too.

    • How about massive amounts of debt because said senators would all be competing for more tax payer money because the swamp legislatures who could recall them at any time would be asking for it? The party establishment controls the legislatures and picks their leaders. Not to mention with the partisan divide split legislatures would never be able to agree on someone therefore some states wouldn’t even have senators. Oh and not to mention the massive potential for bribery, pay to play corruption that could go on. The 17th amendment is there for a reason and it should stay. Enact term limits and you solve most of the problems.

    • If you don’t think state legislatures wont be putting up people who would vote for every piece of pork they could get back to their state then your even dumber then I thought. If you also don’t think this is a recipe for bribery and corruption than your divorced from reality.

    • Oh and heres another little fact Ted Cruz Rand Paul and Marco Rubio would not be in the senate today without the 17th amendment. Well maybe Rubio since he was a former house speaker but the other two would not have been.

    • Yet. All that happens now without the ability for the public to oust their senator.

      There’s already corruption and lobbyist incentives

      Litteraly everything you described already happens. There’s already bribery and corruption. At least with the 17th amendment repealed, citizens of a state have a better chance of having their corrupt senator removed rather than waiting 6 years to vote em out.

    • If you think legislatures are more likely to remove a “corrupt senator” than again your beyond stupid. Said corrupt senator will simply bribe the legislature either with pork back to their district or directly with money and vacations. Just because something already goes on doesn’t mean we should allow more of it. Allowing senators to be recalled would be a better option than repealing the 17th amendment. Oh and you must hate principled conservatives like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul because without the 17th amendment neither of them would be in the senate right now. States can have too much power and this a great example of it.

    • You’re completely missing the point.

      State reps are controlled far more by the populous than state senators are. States elect senators then stuck with them for 6 years no recourse if they start acting against the interests of the state.

      States have far more reps and are easier for the populous control. Especially in my state of NH. We have the 3rd largest legislative body in the world. Right after British parliament and just recently US congress.

      Let’s see a perspective senator buy off 400 state reps without incident. That’d be a trick.

      As for states with fewer reps? Well maybe they should start pushing for better representation in their state.

    • Oh if you don’t think they could buy off 400 legislators than you live in a fantasy world. Maybe not 400 but they certainly could buy off 201 and NH is NOT rest of the country. Most states have a house of reps that’s about 100-150 legislators and a senate that’s anywhere from 25-60. Buying off a majority of those would be easy. All they would have to do is get enough money sent to their districts or a massive pork project that benefits them. And with the way Washington recklessly spends money they would have no problem getting it. Oh and corrupt senators HAVE been forced out through popular election. Remember Carol Mosley Braun? She was voted out. Remember John Ensign and Chris Dodd both had to retire after ethics issues and after their popularity sank. Oh and remember Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, Mark Begich and Mark Udall? Voted out after they voted for Obamacare. And no your dead wrong about Cruz and Paul being in the senate. Do you even know who Cruz’s primary opponent was that year? It was David Dewhurst the Lt Governor who presides over the legislature. Yeah your delusional if you think they would have picked Cruz over him. As for Paul KY had a split legislature at the time which means the democratic controlled house would have never agreed on him. And also his primary opponent was Trey Grayson the secretary of state at the time. Please get over this delusional fantasy that the swamp in the state legislature knows better then the voters.

  1. And how exactly would this make anything better? The Swamp legislatures would pick our senators instead which would just make things worse. And you can bet they’ll want all kinds of pork and federal money sent to their district. Sorry but repealing the 17th amendment is one of the dumbest things ive ever heard. Try term limits 2 terms in the senate and 6 in the house and you’ll get more done.

    • It would give the states back there power against the federal government as intended.
      Senate was to represent the states and congress the people.

    • Yeah give the states power so they can all compete for who gets the most tax payer dollars….yeah no. Direct election allows the people a say NOT the party establishment that controls most of the legislatures and if they have that much of a problem they can vote them out. The legislatures won’t do anything except ask for more federal money and more pork. Term limits are all you need, get them enacted and this problem is fixed.

    • Kevin Lanigan Well first of all the state legislatures are directly voted in by the state’s populations. They may try and get their tax money back from the Federal government. What is wrong with that? It should not be taking that much in the first place.
      Second maybe we can get back to the United States as a collection of states held together by a constitution instead of a nation.
      Term limits creates an environment where the politician tries to get as much as they can during their term. While the unelected bureaucrats stay and run the government. How about term limits for unelected bureaucrats? They can only work in government for 5 years. Make lobbying illegal. Divorce the federal government’s control of the economy and end the federal reserve.

    • State legislatures should focus on issues affecting only the state. This would essentially nationalize state legislature elections. And whats wrong with it? Oh I don’t know maybe the fact that we’re 17 trillion in debt and the last thing we need are swamp creatures who just want more money in their districts picking our senators. And they will take a lot you think its bad now? Imagine for a second the lobbyist whispering in your senator’s ear could fire him instantly bc that’s what repealing the 17th amendment would look like. State legislatures picking senators is an outdated idea that should be left dead.

    • Direct election is straight out of the Populist Party Platform. When they died, the Progressives picked it up, implemented it… and now it appears some love it….
      I can control my State rep….

      Kevin you really need to inspect this father than what you are expressing here….

    • Kevin Lanigan It would also remove money needed for popular campaigns to get elected. It would focus more of our interests in the people and their positions we elect in states. This debate really shows the lack of understand of the intent of checks and balances and classical theory of government.

    • Ahren Tuathail, the Senate was to represent the states, while the House of Representatives was to represent the people. The House and Congress are not synonymous. Congress is the House and Senate together. I don’t offer this correction with any ill will. I used to work as a copy editor in the newspaper world, and you’d be surprised how many reporters would get this wrong as well.

  2. Yes, it needs to be repealed. That would be a better thing to do first, before trying term limits. Popular election of senators was purposely avoided by our founders. We need to wise up.

  3. Everything enacted during 1913 should be repealed. Especially the Federal Reserve. Nothing Federal about and put us all into a cycle of debt.

  4. The 17th amendment was the beginning of the downfall. I support its repeal. The original intent was for a house that represents the interests of the people and a senate that represents the interests of the state. We now have two people’s houses and populism is not the way to run a government.

  5. I have been saying that for a long time. It would give states a lever to control federal power. The constitutions sought to control power by various interests one was that of the power of states and the legislatures of those states seeking their own domains. It also led to more informed and less populist people being selected.

  6. There is one question that it comes to my mind with all these different groups now calling for the appeal of the 27th amendment. What are their agenda that they are you to?

  7. The ones pushing this, are republicans. They control alot of state legislatures and governor offices. It would be a way to stack the deck even more. They really only want the charade of democracy. Yea we all go and vote, but more like elections in Iran or Russia where everybody already knows whos gonna win. Look at NC, they wanted an all powerful republican governor, then suddenly wanted to change the rules when a democrat got elected. Do we think for a second the right wants a dem governor picking state senators? No see then its……different.

Comments are closed.

Latest from News

Thanks for visiting our site! Stay in touch with us by subscribing to our newsletter. You will receive all of our latest updates, articles, endorsements, interviews, and videos direct to your inbox.