Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > MO vs. World

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-31-2000, 10:09 AM   #31
nebo
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 30
Default Re: Crying about insurance and such

The point about insurance, or taxes, or loud pipes etc is all the same one- we're in this boat together and our actions affect each other. Individual rights are fine and dandy but the argument that a rider can do as he pleases because only he is affected is incorrect. We all pay for individual excesses. I would like to see insurance paid along with the purchase of gas. Tax me and insure me on the spot- Ride a little pay a little, ride a lot pay a lot. Cars pay more because they use more gas and cause more damage.One ifxed flat fee for all and everyone pays- no brokers etc.

enjoy,

don't go postal

bye
__________________
Be yourself- everyone else is taken
nebo is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 10-31-2000, 11:42 AM   #32
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default Re: My Last Word On Helmets.

The Supreme Court has uconstitutionally usurped its power to legislate. The Supreme Court was never intended to decide what rights are defendable and which are not. The court has used this amendment to force many kinds of unpopular legislation upon the people over the years, the most repugnant being a non-existent right to privacy which was the basis for an abortion mandate. The ninth amendment does not guarantee any rights in particular, it merely states that there are rights, not specifically enumerated, that exist. The enumerated rights should be enough to provide for the protection of so-called unenumerated rights, provided that the enumerated rights are themselves respected. For example: the Court decided in Conneticut vs. Griswold that there was a right to marital privacy or, more accurately, a right to use contraception. The local laws were limiting in this respect. Provided that manufacture, sale, and possession of contraceptives was legal, property rights, rights against search and seizure, and the fifth amendment (due process of law) should be enough to protect those that wish to use contraceptives. The right to marital privacy did not exist, no matter how much the court wanted it to. The law against contraceptives was constitutional, since any rights not enumerated are reserved to the the states and the people. If popularity for a law against contraceptives was high enough, passing a law against contraceptives is perfectly constitutional. However, the other specifically enumerated rights previously mentioned would make prosecution difficult at best. Property rights and protection against search and seizure would effectively prohibit the gathering of evidence.
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2000, 12:23 PM   #33
cannonball
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5
Default Re: Part II of Gabe's final word...

Gabe - my mistake. When I wrote my reply for some reason my browser was only showing part of your posting. I stand corrected and for the most part agree with what you say.
cannonball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2000, 03:48 PM   #34
Gabe
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 720
Default Well,

at least I don't use the word undefensable. Also, my knowledge of law goes deeper than the Supreme Court can't tell me what to do!
__________________
Gabe Ets-Hokin

Just a guy in the ether...
Gabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2000, 03:48 PM   #35
Gabe
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 720
Default The Sausage Emperor Has no Clothes!

Always good to hear from the lunatic fringe of the meat-packing world! Boy, Abe, you sure sound lucid- I think you have read a lot of ultra-conservative rhetoric, but have a fuzzy understanding of Constitutional Law. I''ll respond to your points one by one.



1. The Supreme Court has uconstitutionally usurped its power to legislate. The Supreme Court was never intended to decide what rights are defenendable(sic)and which are not.



Well, Abe, if the Supreme Court has acted unconstitutionally, it''s the first I''ve heard of it. I''d love to reference some reputable legal scholars who agree with you. But there''s a long, long body of cases, going back to Marbury v. Madison, that gives the Supreme Court the power to decide on the Constitutional validity of state and Federal legislation. When you say that the Supreme Court was never intended to decide which rights were protected, I would respond that the Supreme Court, as well as every other branch of government, does lots of things they weren''t specifically intended to do. However, Article III, section 2[1] of the US Constitution says; The Judical Power shall extend...to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party... The power is extended by the Fourteenth Amendment to include overseeing privleges and immunities. I just don''t see how you can say the Court has no right to decide on what liberties should be protected.



2.The court has used this amendment to force many kinds of unpopular legislation upon the people over the years, the most repugnant being a non-existent right to privacy which was the basis for an abortion mandate.



Uh-oh! Right to life rhetoric alert! Do you really think having a right to privacy is repugnant? You don''t like legal abortion, and I understand that. But many Americans do. Just because legislation is unpopular doesn''t make it illegitimate or wrong. If that was true, there would be no laws at all, which I know is what you want, but non-looneys don''t want to live in a lawless society, thanks very much!



3. The ninth amendment does not guarantee any rights in particular, it merely states that there are rights, not specifically enumerated, that exist. The enumerated rights should be enough

to provide for the protection of so-called unenumerated rights, provided that the enumerated

rights are themselves respected.



Yeah, that''s exactly what I said! Except without the so-called part, which I think you added, since MY copy of the Constitution lacks that bit.

I mean, if a right isn''t enumerated, it must be unenumerated, right?



4. Provided that manufacture, sale, and possession of contraceptives was legal, property rights, rights against search and seizure, and the fifth amendment (due process of law) should be enough to protect those that wish to use contraceptives.



Sure, until the Christian Right passes laws requiring infra-red SexPolice cameras in the bedroom, since you say there''s no such thing as a right to privacy! And what''s to prevent the Chrietian Right from passing legislation outlawing the sale, distribution and possesion of birth control, since we have no right to it?



4. The law against contraceptives was constitutional, since any rights not enumerated are reserved to the the states and the people. If popularity for a law against contraceptives was high enough, passing a law against contraceptives is perfectly constitutional.



That logic isn''t quite as solid as one of your Kielbasas, Abe! I''m glad it''s not true, since I could list a litany of unjust laws that were perfectly popular through the ages, from Jim Crow to anti-asian immigration laws, to laws against Jews and Communists, all the way up to the present anti-homosexual witch hunt in the military. Abe for Fuhrer! I mean, uh, president.



6. However, the other specifically enumerated rights previously mentioned would make prosecution difficult at best. Property rights and protection against search and seizure would effectively prohibit the gathering of evidence.



Oh you bet they would! Just tell that to the million or so folks in prison sitting out petty drug-offense sentences!



Do us all a favor, Mr. Froman: Keep making the sausages, and leave criminal defense to the pros!



All the Fourth Amendment guarantees is that the government maust furnish a warrant before busting into your bedroom to search your nightstand for Trojans. Ask a DA how hard it is to get a warrant, (especially in Chicago!) and say that stuff again with a straight face.



Actually, I don''t know what all this has to do with helmet laws- someone said they have a right to not wear a helmet, and I responded. I guess your response indicates you agree- since there is no mention of helmets in the bill of rights, we have no right to go helmetless? Or is your argument that the government has no legitimacy, so all laws are meaningless?



I''m staying away from Chicago!
__________________
Gabe Ets-Hokin

Just a guy in the ether...
Gabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2000, 04:13 PM   #36
Gabe
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 720
Default Oh no, its the Gestapo!

I hate it when people bandy about terms like gestapo or nazis. It really is insulting to people who's families were murdered by real nazis.



Who are these gestapo? How many people have they murdered? How much speech have they surpressed? Has even one person been savegely beaten by DOT thugs?



How does a safety device on your head prevent your back from breaking? Well, actually there's a post above that addresses that exact point. But I also wear a back protector when I ride. In any case, there's a lot more head injuries than spinal cord injuries. Also, there's nothing you can wear on a bike to prevent every kind of spinal cord injury. But a helmet can prevent a LOT of head injury (but not all) so why not wear it, since it doesn't significantly hurt anything.



When it is their or our turn to die it will happen. No amount of safety gear will help you.



Boy am I glad I'm not you! If I was I'd be dead!



About ten years ago, I was in a lil' 'ol coubtry called Kuwait. When the Ground War started, I was a machine gunner on a Humm-vee. We drove into a mine field (long story), and my truck was blown to bits.



I was totally unhurt, because we had armored the floor with sandbags, and I was wearing a flak vest and helmet. There were rips on my helmet cover from shrapnel. If God really wanted to collect me that day, he could have, I guess, but I survived.



Also, I've crashed about 15 times since I first started riding. I had a helmet on every single time. I've never had more than a superficial injury. Would I have survived every crash helmetless? Maybe. But would you bet $100 on it?



__________________
Gabe Ets-Hokin

Just a guy in the ether...
Gabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2000, 04:16 PM   #37
Gabe
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 720
Default Damn Straight!

Is it just me, or do pro-helmet law advocates spell better?



Anyway, very well said. I wanted to emphasise that I feel helmet laws keep government off the back of responsible motorcycle enthusiasts, while discouraging the reckless poseurs that are the REAL threat to our sport, but you said it better than me.
__________________
Gabe Ets-Hokin

Just a guy in the ether...
Gabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2000, 06:40 PM   #38
Gabe
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 720
Default Re: Oh no, its the Gestapo!

Oh really? I'll bet those guys have crashed hundreds of times! I've crashed a lot because I've ridden for 13 years, and have raced for 6.



Maybe you can ride better than me, but I know I ride better than most riders.



Most of these crashes were pretty minor affairs.



If you were more than a sunny sunday poseur, you'd have a lot more crashes as well.
__________________
Gabe Ets-Hokin

Just a guy in the ether...
Gabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2000, 07:50 PM   #39
Gabe
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 720
Default Re: Oh no, its the Gestapo!

Wow! What thoughtful and witty repartee! I guess my appropriate reply should be, (say with a nasal, whiney tone) No, YOU shut the f*&k up!



Seriously, what in the above post do I know nothing about? How do I display my idiocy? Just curious.
__________________
Gabe Ets-Hokin

Just a guy in the ether...
Gabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2000, 07:55 PM   #40
Gabe
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 720
Default Re: Damn Straight!

Not a rocket scientist, but someone with the courtesy and insight to want to post a thought-out, researched, easy-to-read commentary, rather than spouting out hearsay and stream-of-consciousness gibberish.
__________________
Gabe Ets-Hokin

Just a guy in the ether...
Gabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off