Motorcycle Forums banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Except that the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate sportbikes or thousands of other things it sticks its nose into.

Lots of things cause far more harm than sportbikes--like cars, bicycles, swimming pools and stairs, but no one is crying out to ban them. People like Gregg Easterbrook and other regulatory fascists need to stay (the f**k) out of peoples' lives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Right on the money.



Here are the two amendments that no one ever mentions that prevent the federal government has no authority to regulate even 1% of the things it regulates:



Amendment IX



The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



Amendment X



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



The federal government has specific, enumerated powers. Everything else is off limits to the federal government and retained by the people. Sound like the US we live in today? Not even close.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
"Here are the two amendments that no one ever mentions that prevent the federal government has no authority to regulate even 1% of the things it regulates:"



This should have read: Here are the two amendments that no one ever mentions that show the federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to regulate even 1% of the things it regulates:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
"The courts seem to think otherwise."



Well, uh, gee, what do you think a federal court (often with a judge who has a lifetime appointment from the executive branch) is going to say. The Constitution is clear; the courts are confused and unaccountable.



"Sure thing, but then many motorcycles invade folk’s lives by creating hazardous situations on public roads. I pay taxes and I vote. Why should I allow my child’s life to be put in danger each time she crosses the street to go to the store?"



Your whole argument is classic straw man stuff. This kind of hysteria created the Hollister biker stereotype; for every time I feel my life is endangered by a motorcycle, I must see 10,000 bonehead moves by people in cars on cellphones, but I'm not calling for banning cellphones or cars. (Actually, I can't remember ever feeling endangered by someone on a motorcycle, although I have seen lots of stupid riding that endangered the rider.)

Your child is statistically much more endangered by thousands of other things besides sportbikes. If someone is endangering someone else, we have laws and remedies for it, but Easterbrook's column is about banning things as a kneejerk reaction based on emotion. Not only is it stupid (and ineffectual), it's unconstitutional. This is the same idiotic argument that guns, not people, are responsible for killing people.



 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top