Motorcycle Forums banner

The U.N. will Design Your Next Motorcycle

15487 Views 74 Replies 36 Participants Last post by  Rob-SV650
Hmmm. Interesting. Is this good or bad? Does this mean that the onobtanium bikes sold in Europe and Asia will start showing up here, eventually?

Typically, the AMA is engaging in a little "Chicken Little: squealing on this one to attract attention. While I'm glad that they're around to watch out for things, I'm not convinced that this is a prime concern at the moment. Too many bad things going on in the good 'ol USA as it is.

Black helicopters, anyone?

Pete P.
1 - 8 of 75 Posts
That is false.

The "implied powers" argument you mention refers to the "general welfare" clause of the constitution. In the Federalist Papers, Madison states that that particular clause was NOT designed to give the federal government unlimited power. That would effectively negate the rest of the constitution, which was designed to limit the government to a few specific powers (although FDR deep-sixed that notion a long time ago. Considering the constitutionality of a law BEFORE passage has become a taboo.)
Quite right....

Surrendering our liberties and choices to an unelected organization littered with socialists cannot be good no matter how you slice it. I am seriously considering a vote for the Constitution party the next time around. Part of their platform is to withdraw from the UN, and require them to move their headquarters out of the country. When we bow to an organization that purports to represent numerous other countries, we simply surrender our sovreignity, plain and simple. On both gun control and the environment, their current goals are entirely at odds with the United States Constitution and our national interests. How can their rules on motorcycles be any different?
Hold on a sec there....

Before we join hands and break into "we are the world", let's ask ourselves how control of commerce from a small, unelected, global consortium is good for us.

We see the worst in this because we know that underlying all the one-world talk is the unescapable conclusion that we surrender our sovreignity. These are the same people that are pushing for world-wide gun registration. These is the same orginization that vilifies the U.S. for fanciful environmental destruction fabrications such as global warming, and then seeks unconstitutional control over U.S. citizens and property to cure the alleged "crisis".

By the way, how exactly do european citizens "tolerate" HP limits? What exactly will they do if they decide not to "tolerate" them anymore? Boycott new motorcycle purchases? Given that the limit is currently at 100HP, that is not a very palatable option for someone with a 1992 katana 600. However, new that they've set the limit at 100, kibbles to bits says that 90HP will be the next step. Socialistic societal engineering is always easier when done in slow motion---i.e. liberalism.
See less See more

VFR rider may not be well versed in the finer points of debate concerning the WTO, world bank, NAFTA, or what have you, but I understand his point. Quite frankly, I can't understand how, given your service in the Gulf and your vehemence towards those other organizations, you are so willing to prostrate yourself before the brain wizards at the United Nations. Nowhere in the Constitution exists the clause that allows the United States government to enter into any agreement that is at odds with other areas of the constitution. Nowhere in the constitution is there a clause that would give the fed control over the design and production of motorcycles, therefore no outside orginization has the authority to impose such standards on us either.
In this particular case....

I think insurance companies should be allowed to implement any policies they like without government restriction. If they don't want to take on the risk of insuring a motorcyclist, fine. Some other company will. You need to know this up front, of course, and buy a policy accordingly. I am not familiar with the legislation that you refer to. If it is a law that allows an insurance company to breech their civil contract with a customer provided that the customer was riding a motorcycle, then of course the Congress overstepped their bounds. If that is true, then every civil contract has effectively been declared null and void by the federal legislature. The supreme court would love like to get their hands on a case disputing that notion, I'll bet.
When you can't beat 'em, join 'em....


"We are the world, we are the children....."

All the judicial activist, impeachable commerce clause rulings in the world don't change the fact that imposing national (or world, for that matter) standards on motorcycles has nothing to do with the act of transporting and selling them. This is simply another case of the judiciary usurping the freedom of the people via some mystical concept in the "commerce" clause. Once again, Madison will tell you in the Federalist Papers that these clauses DO NOT give the fed unlimited power over everything. Think back to logic 101: that would negate the rest of the constitution.

You make no legitimate argument for relinquishing control of our sovereignity to a global orginization. "Evolve past where we are now"? That's a highly vague, undefinable concept at best. Let's look at where the globalisation we have participated in has gotten us so far: less freedom. Maybe you don't want to be free. Fine. Whatever. Freedom, however, is the most cherished concept and principle in this country. More important than ANYTHING. More important than health care, education, welfare, feeding starving children, the environment, ANYTHING. What is life without freedom? Give me liberty, or give me death!
See less See more

Why are you so bent on assuring us that globalisation is an unstoppable force? Have you been reading the Bible or something? (FYI... I agree that it will happen, but that doesn't relieve me of my responsibility to fight it.)
Hey, I'm not arguing with you there.....

I've no love for the WTO either. They can suck on the same rotten egg as the U.N. (although they're not the ones telling our troops what to do and where to do it, that would be the U.N.)

In regards to the constitution, you present the same tired argument that every liberal does: the Constitution is only written for white people. That is patent B.S. Nowhere is it written in the Constitution that "these truths are self-evident, and only pertain to white people". Millions of succesful black, hispanic, and especially asian people can testify to that. (Funny how asians never complained about their civil rights. They just came over, pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and started slamming and jamming.)

What you are really saying is that the constitution doesn't benefit them because it doesn't say that you can take money from rich white people and give it to those that aren't both rich and white. Just as it shouldn't. Government-sanctioned stealing is still stealing. Taking my money and giving it to someone else is theft, and it reduces my freedom. Those are socialistic ideas, and entirely incompatible with freedom. If I am forced to give the fruits of my labor to someone else, I am a slave.

Unfortunately for those concerned about freedom, the government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. Thus the cycle continues.
See less See more
1 - 8 of 75 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.