Look at what the courts have to to combat Trump. They don't care if they have jurisdiction, they're ruling based solely on politics. That's immoral and it undermines our Republic. There is no coming back from it.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Look at what the courts have to to combat Trump. They don't care if they have jurisdiction, they're ruling based solely on politics. That's immoral and it undermines our Republic. There is no coming back from it.

---

Agree but that doesn't mean you don't try. This is a place where the Republicans are close to having the numbers and can probably get some 80/20 issues ratified. You have to try.

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

My worry is we'll wind up with 50 something new proposed amendments. Many of which will entirely be dedicated to "social justice"

---

If there are any dems in the process then this will absolutely happen.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Look at what the courts have to to combat Trump. They don't care if they have jurisdiction, they're ruling based solely on politics. That's immoral and it undermines our Republic. There is no coming back from it.

---

Agree but that doesn't mean you don't try. This is a place where the Republicans are close to having the numbers and can probably get some 80/20 issues ratified. You have to try.

---

Try a Convention of States, Yes. Not another Nov 2024. We have learned its futile. Its Convention of States or divorce now it looks like. The system has showed cannot be reformed from D.C. -- but just maybe, about 35+ states can yet force the issue.

Dr. Teeth said:

---

An Article V convention would immediately be named an insurrection and all parties arrested.

---

That's how shooting wars start.

eric76 said:

---

A very good argument could be made that term limits on Congress would result in far more power in the federal bureaucracy. It takes time for a new Congress critter to learn the ropes and become effective. Removing them from office when they reach the point that they can become effective would leave the bureaucrats firmly in control.

Term limits do make for a nice dream, though.

---

Term limits in the senate; not in the house.

HOR has to face the vote every 2 years. If you can do that year in and out, you deserve to be there.

titan said:

---

eric76 said:

---

A very good argument could be made that term limits on Congress would result in far more power in the federal bureaucracy. It takes time for a new Congress critter to learn the ropes and become effective. Removing them from office when they reach the point that they can become effective would leave the bureaucrats firmly in control.

Term limits do make for a nice dream, though.

---

No. That's always the go to for keeping the crap setup have. If need be, set limits on ALL jobs federal. Interesting precedents are being set by this administration. Also set up laws that neuter the power of the unelected to legislate, such as rules not passed by Congress have no force, or enforcement, etc.

---

SCOTUS is doing some work on this. Best thing that Trump did to this nation by forming the current SCOTUS, IMO.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

I would be 100% on board with repealing the 19th. It will destroy us. There's a reason almost every civilization and religion throughout time banned females from certain roles/positions. I realize there are millions of exceptions (aka perfectly reasonable and intelligent women who actually 'think' rather than only 'feel'), and I'm sure in ancient times they did too, and maybe felt sorry for the minority of women who had their heads on straight…but they knew most could not be trusted in those roles. In general, women SUCK at staying informed, having healthy priorities for a society, and at voting. Sorry, my honest opinion. For every Annie88, there's at least 20 women who just have zero clue.

---

This is what happens with out of control hubris.

titan said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Look at what the courts have to to combat Trump. They don't care if they have jurisdiction, they're ruling based solely on politics. That's immoral and it undermines our Republic. There is no coming back from it.

---

Agree but that doesn't mean you don't try. This is a place where the Republicans are close to having the numbers and can probably get some 80/20 issues ratified. You have to try.

---

Try a Convention of States, Yes. Not another Nov 2024. We have learned its futile. Its Convention of States or divorce now it looks like. The system has showed cannot be reformed from D.C. -- but just maybe, about 35+ states can yet force the issue.

---

Have we ever seen a nation separate peacefully? It's a genuine question, you're much better with these things than I am. I don't think that goes well. Soap box. Ballot box. Ammo box. An Article V is a ballot box activity. Sad that's where we are but it beats moving to the next one.

LOYAL AG said:

---

titan said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Look at what the courts have to to combat Trump. They don't care if they have jurisdiction, they're ruling based solely on politics. That's immoral and it undermines our Republic. There is no coming back from it.

---

Agree but that doesn't mean you don't try. This is a place where the Republicans are close to having the numbers and can probably get some 80/20 issues ratified. You have to try.

---

Try a Convention of States, Yes. Not another Nov 2024. We have learned its futile. Its Convention of States or divorce now it looks like. The system has showed cannot be reformed from D.C. -- but just maybe, about 35+ states can yet force the issue.

---

Have we ever seen a nation separate peacefully? It's a genuine question, you're much better with these things than I am. I don't think that goes well. Soap box. Ballot box. Ammo box. An Article V is a ballot box activity. Sad that's where we are but it beats moving to the next one.

---

Nothing less than the biggest. In some idealist over-hyped sense of no violence at all, probably not. But considering its power and scale, Russia broke up somewhat peacefully in 1991. Many of the Warsaw Pact did. But there are other examples here and there. The other thing about 1991 to look at is the other thing to look for is peaceful separations since the anti-war "as solution" notion set in more strongly -- you could say the civil rights focused world view expectation, which does NOT pre-date the 70's. In a way, that pressure was already operating on the Soviets in the late 80's. They would have reacted differently just a decade or so before. Even China hesitated a long time for their character before quashing Tiannnamen Square.

The bottom line is there is extreme non-acceptance for violence as a response to these kind of things as compared to earlier decades. None of this is to deny that you might get Yugoslavia instead. But what trying to say is a D.C. using naked force on a Texas that just voted to leave peacefully AND maintain commerce, etc, would run into some real global static.

If that Scotland vote ever goes through, doubt the British Army will be used to suppress it. Same with this Alberta vote next year in Canada.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

I would be 100% on board with repealing the 19th. It will destroy us. There's a reason almost every civilization and religion throughout time banned females from certain roles/positions. I realize there are millions of exceptions (aka perfectly reasonable and intelligent women who actually 'think' rather than only 'feel'), and I'm sure in ancient times they did too, and maybe felt sorry for the minority of women who had their heads on straight…but they knew most could not be trusted in those roles. In general, women SUCK at staying informed, having healthy priorities for a society, and at voting. Sorry, my honest opinion. For every Annie88, there's at least 20 women who just have zero clue.

---

This is what happens with out of control hubris.

---

How does the female vote make our country better?

If we ain't talking balanced budgets, I don't wanna talk.

Aggies1322 said:

---

If we ain't talking balanced budgets, I don't wanna talk.

---

I don't think this is as easy as it sounds. There will be an exception for wartime and that sets us up for never ending wars, see the War on Terror. In that specific case we declared war and had 20 years of deficit spending that would have been fine.

Repeal the 17th and return control of the Senate to the states and away from the lobbyists.

Repeal the 16th and make it infinitely harder for the government to raise money. Double bonus end the government's direct relationship with citizens. No control over retirement. No using the tax code to influence society.

Ratify an amendment requiring all passed legislation to have a sunset provision of not more than 10 years. That includes creating departments. Existing programs expire in five years from date of ratification.

Do those things and let's see where we are in a decade.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Aggies1322 said:

---

If we ain't talking balanced budgets, I don't wanna talk.

---

I don't think this is as easy as it sounds. There will be an exception for wartime and that sets us up for never ending wars, see the War on Terror. In that specific case we declared war and had 20 years of deficit spending that would have been fine.

Repeal the 17th and return control of the Senate to the states and away from the lobbyists.

Repeal the 16th and make it infinitely harder for the government to raise money. Double bonus end the government's direct relationship with citizens. No control over retirement. No using the tax code to influence society.

Ratify an amendment requiring all passed legislation to have a sunset provision of not more than 10 years. That includes creating departments. Existing programs expire in five years from date of ratification.

Do those things and let's see where we are in a decade.

---

No exceptions allowed. You don't spend money that you don't have.. ever. We'd have enough money for the military if we stop spending money on entitlements.

This post seems to think that the government institution actually abides by the rule of law, and that our population demands it to the point of voting or fighting to ensure it.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

I would be 100% on board with repealing the 19th. It will destroy us. There's a reason almost every civilization and religion throughout time banned females from certain roles/positions. I realize there are millions of exceptions (aka perfectly reasonable and intelligent women who actually 'think' rather than only 'feel'), and I'm sure in ancient times they did too, and maybe felt sorry for the minority of women who had their heads on straight…but they knew most could not be trusted in those roles. In general, women SUCK at staying informed, having healthy priorities for a society, and at voting. Sorry, my honest opinion. For every Annie88, there's at least 20 women who just have zero clue.

---

This is what happens with out of control hubris.

---

How does the female vote make our country better?

---

How does the male vote? Black vote? White vote? Jewish vote? Muslim vote?

Aggies1322 said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Aggies1322 said:

---

If we ain't talking balanced budgets, I don't wanna talk.

---

I don't think this is as easy as it sounds. There will be an exception for wartime and that sets us up for never ending wars, see the War on Terror. In that specific case we declared war and had 20 years of deficit spending that would have been fine.

Repeal the 17th and return control of the Senate to the states and away from the lobbyists.

Repeal the 16th and make it infinitely harder for the government to raise money. Double bonus end the government's direct relationship with citizens. No control over retirement. No using the tax code to influence society.

Ratify an amendment requiring all passed legislation to have a sunset provision of not more than 10 years. That includes creating departments. Existing programs expire in five years from date of ratification.

Do those things and let's see where we are in a decade.

---

No exceptions allowed. You don't spend money that you don't have.. ever. We'd have enough money for the military if we stop spending money on entitlements.

---

Sorry but that seems wholly impractical. What happens when a war kicks off and it doesn't fit in the budget for this year? Do we just wait til next budget cycle? We can't pass emergency spending measures because there's no revenue for it. Do we take on debt and figure out how to pay for it later?

IMO that's just another step away from the original intent. I would prefer we return the country to its original design when we didn't run deficits because the dumb **** we spend money on now didn't exist. Make it significantly harder for big money to influence spending to begin with. Eliminate Congress's ability to use tax dollars to buy votes. Much of we both dislike would end.

The sad truth we want the same outcome and we're both going to be disappointed in the end.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

I would be 100% on board with repealing the 19th. It will destroy us. There's a reason almost every civilization and religion throughout time banned females from certain roles/positions. I realize there are millions of exceptions (aka perfectly reasonable and intelligent women who actually 'think' rather than only 'feel'), and I'm sure in ancient times they did too, and maybe felt sorry for the minority of women who had their heads on straight…but they knew most could not be trusted in those roles. In general, women SUCK at staying informed, having healthy priorities for a society, and at voting. Sorry, my honest opinion. For every Annie88, there's at least 20 women who just have zero clue.

---

Pipe dream

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

I would be 100% on board with repealing the 19th. It will destroy us. There's a reason almost every civilization and religion throughout time banned females from certain roles/positions. I realize there are millions of exceptions (aka perfectly reasonable and intelligent women who actually 'think' rather than only 'feel'), and I'm sure in ancient times they did too, and maybe felt sorry for the minority of women who had their heads on straight…but they knew most could not be trusted in those roles. In general, women SUCK at staying informed, having healthy priorities for a society, and at voting. Sorry, my honest opinion. For every Annie88, there's at least 20 women who just have zero clue.

---

This is what happens with out of control hubris.

---

How does the female vote make our country better?

---

This is absurd. Politics is the art of the possible. Stick to things we can accomplish. There's a 0% chance women vote to eliminate their right to vote and a 100% chance enough married men aren't willing to get divorced over the subject.

I'm in favor of repealing amendments where there isn't an automatic no from at least half the country.

Totally. Its utterly unreasonable. For one thing, try to imagine getting the votes to pass it.

Now if you are talking in terms of historical trajectory, yes, it might happen. Because Islamic rule would certainly abolish it. There are other factions that would too.

But the very phrase "repeal" implies the orderly Amendment process. The whole point of the thread is it not, is discussing amendments that there seems to be a 90-10 or similar interest in? That just might work?

Then anything that could even remotely cut entitlements is out, too.

So anything relating to the budget is doa.

titan said:

---

Totally. Its utterly unreasonable. For one thing, try to imagine getting the votes to pass it.

Now if you are talking in terms of historical trajectory, yes, it might happen. Because Islamic rule would certainly abolish it. There are other factions that would too.

But the very phrase "repeal" implies the orderly Amendment process. The whole point of the thread is it not, is discussing amendments that there seems to be a 90-10 or similar interest in? That just might work?

---

Right. The only way the 19th goes away is if the U.S. ceases to exist and something else replaces it.

Heck, I even think a convention of states itself is a pipe dream. The federal government has become so large and entangled with everything else, I'm of the opinion it's unstoppable now until Leviathan grows so large it simply implodes.

DOGE was the final nail in the coffin for me and this opinion. We had a legitimate chance to trim government and it went over like a lead balloon in Congress. So if it couldn't happen under Trump a super unconventional president backed by the world's richest man, how can it otherwise?

Unfortunately I think we're headed for a split at a minimum when certain states completely fail and become a demonstrable drain on others. We're already seeing the prologue to this right now as red and blue states gather together and simply fight through the courts, for now at least.

Zobel said:

---

Then anything that could even remotely cut entitlements is out, too.

So anything relating to the budget is doa.

---

Maybe but the 16th and 17th aren't directly related to spending. More importantly the amendment process involves state legislators many of which are women but also conservative. I think you could get half the country to understand that a significant part of the current problems tie back to direct election of Senators and have a chance. More importantly state legislatures ratify amendments and it's not hard to see 38 states voting to increase their control over the federal government by taking back control over how Senators are selected. From there let's see how much traction you get with real change to spending. Repealing the 17th would dramatically shift the Senate to the right and that could have a big impact on spending. As an idea it doesn't automatically turn off half the country.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Aggies1322 said:

---

If we ain't talking balanced budgets, I don't wanna talk.

---

I don't think this is as easy as it sounds. There will be an exception for wartime and that sets us up for never ending wars, see the War on Terror. In that specific case we declared war and had 20 years of deficit spending that would have been fine.

Repeal the 17th and return control of the Senate to the states and away from the lobbyists.

Repeal the 16th and make it infinitely harder for the government to raise money. Double bonus end the government's direct relationship with citizens. No control over retirement. No using the tax code to influence society.

Ratify an amendment requiring all passed legislation to have a sunset provision of not more than 10 years. That includes creating departments. Existing programs expire in five years from date of ratification.

Do those things and let's see where we are in a decade.

---

We did not have a war declaration for GWOT. WWII was the last time the United States issued a declaration of war.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

titan said:

---

Totally. Its utterly unreasonable. For one thing, try to imagine getting the votes to pass it.

Now if you are talking in terms of historical trajectory, yes, it might happen. Because Islamic rule would certainly abolish it. There are other factions that would too.

But the very phrase "repeal" implies the orderly Amendment process. The whole point of the thread is it not, is discussing amendments that there seems to be a 90-10 or similar interest in? That just might work?

---

Right. The only way the 19th goes away is if the U.S. ceases to exist and something else replaces it.

Heck, I even think a convention of states itself is a pipe dream. The federal government has become so large and entangled with everything else, I'm of the opinion it's unstoppable now until Leviathan grows so large it simply implodes.

DOGE was the final nail in the coffin for me and this opinion. We had a legitimate chance to trim government and it went over like a lead balloon in Congress. So if it couldn't happen under Trump a super unconventional president backed by the world's richest man, how can it otherwise?

Unfortunately I think we're headed for a split at a minimum when certain states completely fail and become a demonstrable drain on others. We're already seeing the prologue to this right now as red and blue states gather together and simply fight through the courts, for now at least.

---

I don't think a Convention of States is a pipe dream, but it will have to happen fast or that will become true. Got to shove aside the doubters who keep insisting on confusing it with a Constitutional Convention. If it could begin, you might get some of this. And you just might on the 16th and 17th.

Now on this 19th matter -- for what El Gallo Blanco is talking about, that is as much a fault of the education as it is the vote. Get rid of the Left wing university system might go a long way and arguably is even needed now. Certainly more feasible.

But alot of this stuff is more in the category of that "ship has sailed."

I do agree about DOGE and its implications more than its specifics --- as posted earlier, I think the 47 admin has done the service of showing the system cannot be reformed from D.C. The 50 states may be able to force change (the details how matter less each day) --but it will not reform itself; cannot be reformed by the mechanisms of the WH, judiciary, and Hill.

Anything that may curtail spending runs off more than half.

The Sun said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Aggies1322 said:

---

If we ain't talking balanced budgets, I don't wanna talk.

---

I don't think this is as easy as it sounds. There will be an exception for wartime and that sets us up for never ending wars, see the War on Terror. In that specific case we declared war and had 20 years of deficit spending that would have been fine.

Repeal the 17th and return control of the Senate to the states and away from the lobbyists.

Repeal the 16th and make it infinitely harder for the government to raise money. Double bonus end the government's direct relationship with citizens. No control over retirement. No using the tax code to influence society.

Ratify an amendment requiring all passed legislation to have a sunset provision of not more than 10 years. That includes creating departments. Existing programs expire in five years from date of ratification.

Do those things and let's see where we are in a decade.

---

We did not have a war declaration for GWOT. WWII was the last time the United States issued a declaration of war.

---

Small quibble. In the letter of the law sense, perhaps, but the vote to intervene against Iraq was talking in a pleasingly Congressional centered debate. It certainly had the outlines of a declaration of war and such consultation.

Overlooked is we also seem to have had one in reverse -- in second term of Obama, believe it was in 2013, Congress had a public enough debate where it could be shown there was *not* support for war in Syria, and it didn't really occur. Not outright. Not like 1990 and 2003.

The GWOT - kind of a hard call. Our declaration or war on Dec 8, 1941 was almost redundant. 9/11 was somewhat similar. Oh, and this goes to a pet peeve against Tucker and liberals who lump "Afghanistan" in with "the other wars" this century. In October, we gave Afghanistan a chance to stop harboring Al Qaeda--- the ultimatum was there. Frankly their harboring an attack on us rated direct war anyway -- but we did give them chance to cooperate. This was rebuffed by the Taliban; we ended up still restraining, acting through the Northern Alliance to impose the all too fully earned chastisement and hammer blow.

It was the aftermath botched, by acting too much like LBJ directing a war. We were fully in rights to go after Afghanistan after 9/11.

Convention of States would be kneecapped by injunctions. Somebody has to pay the lawyers.

Law-Apt_3G said:

---

Convention of States would be kneecapped by injunctions. Somebody has to pay the lawyers.

---

The courts don't have that ability.

The Sun said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Aggies1322 said:

---

If we ain't talking balanced budgets, I don't wanna talk.

---

I don't think this is as easy as it sounds. There will be an exception for wartime and that sets us up for never ending wars, see the War on Terror. In that specific case we declared war and had 20 years of deficit spending that would have been fine.

Repeal the 17th and return control of the Senate to the states and away from the lobbyists.

Repeal the 16th and make it infinitely harder for the government to raise money. Double bonus end the government's direct relationship with citizens. No control over retirement. No using the tax code to influence society.

Ratify an amendment requiring all passed legislation to have a sunset provision of not more than 10 years. That includes creating departments. Existing programs expire in five years from date of ratification.

Do those things and let's see where we are in a decade.

---

We did not have a war declaration for GWOT. WWII was the last time the United States issued a declaration of war.

---

You're right, my mistake. Still in a situation where we need a declaration to overspend to fund said war we would have had a declaration. That's really the point. We would have declared war and it would have last two decades.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

titan said:

---

Totally. Its utterly unreasonable. For one thing, try to imagine getting the votes to pass it.

Now if you are talking in terms of historical trajectory, yes, it might happen. Because Islamic rule would certainly abolish it. There are other factions that would too.

But the very phrase "repeal" implies the orderly Amendment process. The whole point of the thread is it not, is discussing amendments that there seems to be a 90-10 or similar interest in? That just might work?

---

Right. The only way the 19th goes away is if the U.S. ceases to exist and something else replaces it.

Heck, I even think a convention of states itself is a pipe dream. The federal government has become so large and entangled with everything else, I'm of the opinion it's unstoppable now until Leviathan grows so large it simply implodes.

DOGE was the final nail in the coffin for me and this opinion. We had a legitimate chance to trim government and it went over like a lead balloon in Congress. So if it couldn't happen under Trump a super unconventional president backed by the world's richest man, how can it otherwise?

Unfortunately I think we're headed for a split at a minimum when certain states completely fail and become a demonstrable drain on others. We're already seeing the prologue to this right now as red and blue states gather together and simply fight through the courts, for now at least.

---

Not so fast my friend....under sharia, women will not be voting. Not surprisingly, the alphabet people vote will go away too, hard to vote when you're flying from a skyscraper. The left will be the undoing of the left.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

I would be 100% on board with repealing the 19th. It will destroy us. There's a reason almost every civilization and religion throughout time banned females from certain roles/positions. I realize there are millions of exceptions (aka perfectly reasonable and intelligent women who actually 'think' rather than only 'feel'), and I'm sure in ancient times they did too, and maybe felt sorry for the minority of women who had their heads on straight…but they knew most could not be trusted in those roles. In general, women SUCK at staying informed, having healthy priorities for a society, and at voting. Sorry, my honest opinion. For every Annie88, there's at least 20 women who just have zero clue.

---

This is what happens with out of control hubris.

---

How does the female vote make our country better?

---

However it goes, it balances out the horribly misogynistic vote you're offering which only serves to make a better country.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

I would be 100% on board with repealing the 19th. It will destroy us. There's a reason almost every civilization and religion throughout time banned females from certain roles/positions. I realize there are millions of exceptions (aka perfectly reasonable and intelligent women who actually 'think' rather than only 'feel'), and I'm sure in ancient times they did too, and maybe felt sorry for the minority of women who had their heads on straight…but they knew most could not be trusted in those roles. In general, women SUCK at staying informed, having healthy priorities for a society, and at voting. Sorry, my honest opinion. For every Annie88, there's at least 20 women who just have zero clue.

---

This is what happens with out of control hubris.

---

How does the female vote make our country better?

---

How does the male vote? Black vote? White vote? Jewish vote? Muslim vote?

---

Male vote

Dan Carlin said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

I would be 100% on board with repealing the 19th. It will destroy us. There's a reason almost every civilization and religion throughout time banned females from certain roles/positions. I realize there are millions of exceptions (aka perfectly reasonable and intelligent women who actually 'think' rather than only 'feel'), and I'm sure in ancient times they did too, and maybe felt sorry for the minority of women who had their heads on straight…but they knew most could not be trusted in those roles. In general, women SUCK at staying informed, having healthy priorities for a society, and at voting. Sorry, my honest opinion. For every Annie88, there's at least 20 women who just have zero clue.

---

This is what happens with out of control hubris.

---

How does the female vote make our country better?

---

However it goes, it balances out the horribly misogynistic vote you're offering which only serves to make a better country.

---

Progressivism is horrible for this country. See every major city that is in a chaotic state of decay.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

I would be 100% on board with repealing the 19th. It will destroy us. There's a reason almost every civilization and religion throughout time banned females from certain roles/positions. I realize there are millions of exceptions (aka perfectly reasonable and intelligent women who actually 'think' rather than only 'feel'), and I'm sure in ancient times they did too, and maybe felt sorry for the minority of women who had their heads on straight…but they knew most could not be trusted in those roles. In general, women SUCK at staying informed, having healthy priorities for a society, and at voting. Sorry, my honest opinion. For every Annie88, there's at least 20 women who just have zero clue.

---

This is what happens with out of control hubris.

---

How does the female vote make our country better?

---

How does the male vote? Black vote? White vote? Jewish vote? Muslim vote?

---

Male vote

---

You're pinning it all our problems on the 19th Amendment but the basis of our destruction was 1913 which saw the 16th and 17th ratified and the creation of the Federal Reserve. Since 16 and 17 are before 19 I'd say those things were brought about exclusively by men. The Progressive Era definitely started long before the 19th Amendment was ratified. Yes white liberal women are a problem but let's not pretend we're here exclusively because women are allowed to vote.